Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Representation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would create public‑defender family‑defense units to speed counsel for parents and children
Summary
Sen. Dennis Lenz’s SB151 directs the Office of State Public Defender to create dedicated units to represent parents and children in dependency‑and‑neglect cases; agency witnesses said state employees can assign counsel in about one day versus six days for private contractors, and the change aims to standardize practice while transitioning contract work into FTEs.
Sen. Dennis Lenz introduced Senate Bill 151, asking the committee to require the director of the Office of State Public Defender (OPD) to establish organizational trial units to provide counsel to parents and children in dependency‑and‑neglect (DN) cases. Lenz said the change would move some work currently done by contract attorneys into salaried OPD units to ensure more consistent, specialized representation.
Kelly Driscoll, family defense bureau chief at OPD, described the practical difference the bill seeks to lock in. "The average time for a client to get an attorney that's assigned through our unit ... is 1 day," she said, noting that contractors typically take about six days to produce a lead defense attorney. Driscoll added that the FTE model allows specialization so attorneys do only DN casework and can offer more consistent intake, conflict checks and early contact with families before emergency protective‑services hearings.
Brett Shandelson, director of OPD, told lawmakers the agency operates a mixed model—state public defenders plus independent contractors—and has limited ability to direct contractors' day‑to‑day practice. He said the policy changes enacted last session created a formal FTE process and centralized intake that improved consistency, and SB151 would extend that model into parental and child representation units.
Lawmakers pressed the sponsor and OPD on the fiscal note and transition. Lenz said the Senate pared back the original request and the fiscal note reflects a conservative two‑year transition in which contracts and in‑house staffing overlap; he said after two years the costs look roughly even because contract work is converted to state FTEs. Members also asked whether federal IV‑E funding that helps reimburse some family‑defense costs is stable; Lenz and Shandelson told the committee they had not heard of changes and that IV‑E support was a significant contributor to the fiscal picture.
Supporters emphasized timeliness and specialty as key benefits. Members asked about statewide staffing; Driscoll said the OPD family defense bureau already maintains staff in Kalispell, Missoula, Butte, Helena, Billings and Great Falls and would seek to replicate that footprint for the new units. The sponsors and OPD said additional implementation details—org codes, a managing attorney for each unit and the staffing timeline—would be handled during agency execution if the bill passes.
The committee did not take a final vote during the open hearing. The record for the hearing includes presentations from the OPD director and bureau chief and questions from representatives about caseload, specialization and the fiscal transition.
