Attorney general would represent the state's interest, not Child Safety, when misconduct is alleged

In some child welfare cases, the attorney general or appointed counsel would represent the state's interest in lawful compliance and the integrity of the proceeding, not the Department of Child Safety as a client. This applies to dependency, severance, guardianship, and adoption cases where a party, the court, or an oversight entity raises a credible allegation against the department or its agent. The allegation must be that the department or its agent failed to follow title 8 or a court order, made a material misrepresentation to the court, presented incomplete, misleading, or false evidence, or engaged in retaliation, gross negligence, or willful misconduct.

Counsel would independently review the record and tell the court their legal view, and the department could not direct or punish counsel for disagreeing with it. This applies to the attorney general or appointed counsel in the cases described above. Counsel must advise the court on statutory compliance, the integrity of the evidence, and whether the department's recommendation is appropriate, including any material disagreement with the department. Counsel is not subject to direction, retaliation, or adverse employment action by the department for taking a position that differs from the department's.

The Department of Child Safety would be listed among the agencies that may employ their own legal counsel, instead of relying only on the attorney general. This applies to the Department of Child Safety and to the law that bars other state agencies from hiring lawyers or paying for legal services.