Florida Legal Services Strikes Blow At Victims Rights
In 1996, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid successfully sued the state for
requiring parents to pay restitution for their children’s crimes. The case
was sparked by the decision of Jacksonville juvenile court authorities
to clear a large backlog of unpaid restitution from six hundred parents
who had failed to make arrears. Authorities took the step after receiving
several letters from victims complaining that they had not received restitution
as ordered. While most parents promptly paid, a few refused. Jacksonville
Area Legal Aid took up the cause of those recalcitrant parents who did
not believe they owed anything for their children’s criminal behavior.
In July, Legal Aid persuaded a state appeals court that parents can not
be ordered to pay restitution by exploiting a loophole in Florida’s restitution
law. Because the law said the courts could “order the child to make restitution”
without specifically mentioning parents or guardians, Legal Aid argued
that there was no legal basis for holding parents liable. Juvenile court
judge A.C. Soud strongly criticized Legal Aid’s victory as “a blow to victims.”
Soud declared that “Victims in juvenile justice, regrettably are of no
consideration.”
See C.M. v. State of Florida, 676 2d 498, Fl. App. Ct., 1996
Legal Services Seek Court Takeover of Florida Public Schools
In 1996, several LSC grantees, not happy with the state legislature’s
education budget, tried to get the courts to unconstitutionally take over
the funding of Florida’s public schools. Legal Services of Greater Miami,
Bay Area Legal Services, Florida Rural Legal Services and Legal Services
of North Carolina filed a suit claiming that the legislature had violated
the state constitutional requirement that it provide for a “uniform system
of free public schools” by not insuring that every school district in the
state had equal funding and equal levels of educational quality. The state
supreme court rejected legal services’ brand of judicial activism ruling
that the uniformity clause was “never intended to require that each school
district be a mirror image of every other one.” The court added that “Such
a goal is clearly impossible on a practical level” and “the constitution
should not be read to require an impossibility.” Furthermore, the court
rejected as unconstitutional legal services’ argument that the courts usurp
the legislature and take over the duties of setting the public school budget.
See Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles,
680 So. 2d 400, Fl. Sup. Ct., 1996
Legal Services Critical of Crackdown on Public Housing Crime
Florida Rural Legal Services (FRLS) is currently opposing a public housing
project's efforts to crack down on crime. Under the "One Strike and You're
Out" policy championed by the Clinton Administration, a public housing
tenant who allows a relative or guest to engage in serious criminal activity
is subject to immediate eviction. Longtime residents of Boynton Beach public
housing strongly back the get-tough policy, calling it the first effective
action they have seen that clamps down on the crime traditionally plaguing
their communities. Said one resident, "We don't hear the gunshots and fighting
in the streets, at least it's more seldon . . . Our police department and
housing authority are helping us." However, FRLS lawyers are critical of
the policy. Although they claim to support a crackdown on drug crime, they
contend it is unfair to make a tenant responsible for a relative or friends'
criminal activity. However, legal services lawyers around the nation are
notorious for using just this argument to prevent the eviction of individuals
who are clearly involved in or encouraging drug crimes in public housing.
Police say before “one strike” they could not arrest suspected drug dealers
even for loitering or trespassing because bureaucratic rules made it too
easy for residents to protect them as “guests.” Now, under “one-strike”,
police and housing officials have the tools to quickly take action against
both the criminal outsiders and the residents encouraging their crimes.
See Jim Di Pola, “Clinton’s One-Strike Rule Hits Home,” Sun-Sentinel,
Feb. 9, 1997, pg. 1B
City Sued For Not Annexing Public Housing Project
Florida Rural Legal Services (FRLS) is currently engaged in a voting-rights
lawsuit it filed against the city of Belle Glade in 1995. The suit alleges
that the city’s failure to annex a majority-black public housing project,
called Okeechobee Center, is racially motivated. This is the third suit
FRLS has filed in 15 years demanding that Belle Glade annex Okeechobee
Center. FRLS argues that the city of Belle Glade which is 58 percent black
with three whites and two blacks serving as city commissioners wants to
avoid adding new black residents to maintain white control. Belle Glade
officials counter that the cash-strapped city can not afford to acquire
a housing project that doesn’t pay taxes while assuming the costs of providing
services. City Manager Lomax Harielle says it's strictly a business issue.
“We’re having severe budgetary problems already without taking on another
entity that doesn't provide a tax base.” Ironically, even the Okeechobee
housing authority says it would refuse its consent to an annexation if
a court ordered Belle Glade to make the offer. Calling the lawsuit “blackmail,”
the authority’s attorney says, “The housing authority’s mission is to provide
safe, affordable, clean housing for farmworkers, not to become embroiled
in political battles or political agendas fostered by organizations such
as Florida Rural Legal Services.”
See Bill Douthat, “Belle Glade Blacks Told to Get Out Their
Vote,” The Palm Beach Post, Sept. 9, 1996, pg. 1B