Court considers kids' right to representation; bar panel argues kids should talk with a lawyer before being able to waive their right to counsel.

Children in juvenile court should not be allowed to waive their right to counsel and enter a plea without first talking to an attorney and understanding fully what rights they are giving up.

That was the top priority of The Florida Bar Commission on the Legal Needs of Children, after three years of research and study. It was also recommended by both the Supreme Court's Steering Committee on Family and Children in the Courts and the Juvenile Court Rules Committee, approved by the Bar Board of Governors, and endorsed by the Florida Public Defender Association.

But in oral arguments June 10 on proposed amendment to Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.165, justices peppered lawyers with practical questions, including Justice Charles Wells' attempt to get a handle on the fiscal impact it may have on public defenders who say they are willing to take on these added duties in juvenile court.

"My concern is, I want to understand how this will work in real life," Wells said.

Gerard Glynn, executive director of Florida's Children First! and a member of the Juvenile Rules Committee, described what he envisioned should happen at arraignment: The judge would ask the child whether he or she had talked to an attorney. If the child answers, "Yes," the judge would inquire: "Whom did you speak with?" and probably go into a colloquy about what the child understood. If the child answers, "No," the judge would ask the child to speak to the public defender already on duty in the courtroom.

Justice Peggy Quince asked about determining whether the child is indigent to qualify for the public defender. And Justice Raoul Cantero asked whether a child's family who is not indigent would be directed by the judge to hire an attorney.

To the first question, Glynn answered that the public defender would simply be assigned to talk to the child for that limited purpose, not appointed for the whole case, so it should not be a problem. To the second question, Glynn answered that [section] 985.203 deals with that issue.

"It is common that a parent may refuse to want to hire an attorney. And the reason the child is entering this plea is because generally children don't have money," Glynn said. The statute gives the judge the authority to appoint a paid attorney to a non-indigent client and order the parents to pay for that attorney, he said.

Justice Barbara Pariente asked why the Bar's Commission on the Legal Needs of Children saw the need for this new rule.

Glynn quoted the commission's 2002...