Latest news with #DustinManwaring
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Idaho law restricts right to public defenders in parental rights termination
Despite a more narrow intent in the Idaho Legislature, two child welfare attorneys worry that broad language in Senate Bill 1181 could have far-reaching effects in legal cases for parental rights termination, which some attorneys call the 'civil death penalty.' (Getty Images) A new public defender workload law might inadvertently end the right to legal counsel in Idaho court cases that could result in parents permanently losing their kids. Despite a more narrow intent in the Idaho Legislature, two child welfare attorneys worry that broad language in Senate Bill 1181 could have far-reaching effects in legal cases for parental rights termination, which some attorneys call the 'civil death penalty.' There are two ways parental rights termination cases can be brought: By the state — often initiated by a state health department, or by a private party, such as one parent wanting to end the rights of another parent. The law could make Idaho one of only four states in the U.S. that don't guarantee a right to counsel in state-initiated parental rights termination cases, according to the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. 'We've not really seen a state go backwards on this before Idaho,' John Pollock, an attorney and coordinator with the coalition, told the Idaho Capital Sun in an interview. But Idaho lawmakers who sponsored the bill say they believe the bill won't work that way. Instead, the lawmakers say the law's impact will be more narrow: It would just revoke the automatic right to counsel in parental right termination cases brought by private parties, as opposed to the state. And they say the new law outlines a process for the court to grant counsel rights to certain parents under what is called a legal indigency test, which is commonly used to appoint public defense attorneys in criminal cases. Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, cosponsored the bill in the House. He says the bill was widely negotiated and narrowly crafted. 'We were careful to make sure that we said that that counsel can still be provided if constitutionally required. And that's how several states do it right now,' Manwaring told the Sun in an interview. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The law takes effect July 1. The new law makes two changes to how public defenders work on parental rights termination cases: The bill amends an Idaho law around parental rights termination, to specify counsel shall be provided 'only if such representation is constitutionally required.' That is in addition to existing language in the law that allows the right to legal counsel in those cases, if requested 'and the parent or guardian is financially unable to employ counsel.' The bill also amends an Idaho law about broader right to legal counsel that guarantees the right to an attorney in cases brought under Idaho's Child Protective Act. The new bill adds language 'excluding actions brought exclusively under' Idaho's parental rights termination law, found in Idaho Code Title 16 Chapter 20. Those two changes are what worries Mary Shea, an Idaho child welfare attorney and previous Democratic candidate for the Idaho Legislature in Pocatello. First, there's no constitutional requirement for counsel in parental rights termination cases, she said. The U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies in criminal cases, not civil cases — like parental right termination cases. In a 1981 ruling, the United States Supreme Court clarified that indigent parents didn't have a constitutional right to counsel in parental rights termination cases. In that ruling, the court said it 'would not force states to provide counsel for termination of parental rights cases except on a 'case-by-case basis,'' Shea said. 'And nobody really knows what that means. But basically that the court said if the case was sufficiently complex or complicated, that a parent's parental due process rights would be violated. Only in the most difficult cases where without an attorney, it just is not a fair process, would counsel be required.' In Idaho, attorneys will now have to go before judges in every parental rights termination case to make the case for right to counsel, Shea said. The new law's second change also effectively eliminates the right to a state-appointed public defender in all parental rights cases, she said. 'I personally believe that there should be a right to counsel in every termination of parental rights cases — because the rights at stake are so important,' Shea said. Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, the bill's original cosponsor, said when he was a prosecutor, judges would ask defendants requesting a public defender about their financial circumstances. If they met the criteria, then an attorney was appointed. That's the sort of vetting process he sought to bring in privately initiated parental rights termination cases through his bill. Asked if he agreed with the concern the bill would revoke all right to counsel in these cases, Lakey said 'we can see how it goes, but I don't think so.' In 2024, when the state took over the management of the public defense system from Idaho counties, Manwaring said officials didn't expect they'd be providing legal counsel in private parental termination cases. He said there's always been an indigency test in these cases, but Manwaring didn't know if it was happening. 'I think the reason it is is because a lot of times in these cases, the majority of them probably are indigent,' he said. In privately initiated termination cases, Manwaring said lawmakers believe counsel shouldn't be automatically provided. By instead allowing a judge to determine if counsel should be provided, he argued the state can analyze the scope of how many private cases get counsel appointments. 'Because these are taxpayer funds,' Manwaring said. 'This is a state agency. We want to be careful that we're not overstepping the bounds of what the state should be paying for.' CONTACT US Idaho State Public Defender Office spokesperson Patrick Orr said the office believes its public defenders should not be representing parents in privately brought cases. If a court appoints legal counsel in a privately initiated case, he said 'it will be up to others to decide how to find, assign, and pay attorneys to represent clients in private termination cases.' 'Our office, which provides indigent criminal defense representation and representation for parents in Child Protective Act cases where the state seeks to interfere with the parent-child relationship, should not be providing legal representation in disputes between private parties,' Orr told the Sun in an email. Parents would have a tough time representing themselves, Shea said. 'If you don't understand the rules of civil procedure or the rules of evidence, if you don't know how to get your questions about the other side's case answered in the discovery process of litigation, and if you don't know how to argue your case to a judge — it would be very difficult for a parent to go against an attorney on the other side and succeed,' she said. But even if lawmakers had fixed the bill to just end the right to counsel in privately brought parental termination cases, Pollock said his legal advocacy group would still have an issue with the bill. Several courts have struck down that distinction to only remove the right to counsel only in privately initiated cases, ruling those moves violate equal protection, he said. The bill is an attempt to clarify public defender roles months into Idaho's troubled switch from county-level public defenders to a state-managed public defense office. In October 2024, Idaho officially transferred public defense from Idaho's 44 counties into the new statewide agency, called the Office of the State Public Defender. During that transition, some public defenders quit, citing new pay cuts. The ACLU of Idaho, which sued the state in 2015 alleging Idaho's public defense system violated low-income people's constitutional right to counsel, in January asked the Idaho Supreme Court to intervene in the new public defense system. The organization alleged 'countless indigent defendants have appeared in courts' across Idaho without representation from the State Public Defender's Office, the Sun previously reported. Manwaring said the bill was meant to be a first step to smooth out kinks in the transition. And he expects more tweaks in the years ahead. 'We know we're going to continue to look at this carefully and make adjustments going forward that need to happen, including in this lane of termination of parental rights cases,' Manwaring said. 'If we don't have this right, we're going to make sure we're going to continue to review this and make those amendments going forward if we need to.' In March, lawmakers introduced the bill. Within two weeks, it passed both chambers of the Legislature — one day before this year's legislative session ended. In the House's committee hearing on the bill, Shea testified about her concern that the bill would end all right to counsel in parental termination cases. Then the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee slated the bill for amendments. But in the final days of the Legislature, the House passed the bill without amendments. Asked why the bill wasn't amended, Manwaring said lawmakers were able to address concerns among committee members about the bill in the meantime. Less than two weeks after it passed the House and Senate, Gov. Brad Little signed it into law. The governor's office could not be immediately reached for comment. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
After stalled WWAMI termination bill, Idaho Legislature introduces medical education bill
Since 1972, Idaho has been part of the WWAMI program to send students to the University of Washington's medical school. (Courtesy of the University of Idaho) The Idaho Legislature introduced a new bill Wednesday that would cut Idaho's medical education seats through a partnership with University of Washington, or UW, and instead expand other medical education seats. The bill, which is expected to be posted on the Idaho Legislature's website within the next day, is an alternative to another bill that would end Idaho's decades-long participation in the WWAMI partnership — with a slew of rural Western states — that carves out state-subsidized slots for Idaho students to attend UW's highly regarded medical school. House Bill 176, the Idaho WWAMI termination bill, has stalled for weeks after wide backlash from doctors. Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, and Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, cosponsored both bills. 'I think there's a lot of discussions that we're going to have in the coming days about these proposals moving forward, and which one makes the most sense for Idaho,' Manwaring told the House Education Committee. 'Part of what I heard in the last few weeks was … some folks wanted both. They wanted to try to keep an attachment to the University of Washington and WAMMI, while we build out a different program.' Idaho ranks 50th in the nation for the number of active physicians per capita. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Their new bill calls for Idaho to add 10 medical education seats each year outside of WWAMI, beginning with the academic year that starts in 2026. Under the bill, Idaho would continue that expansion each year until the incoming class size reaches 30 students. The bill doesn't name a medical school that would fulfill that requirement. But as Manwaring presented the bill to the committee Wednesday, he hinted at options. He said he's seen strong interest in University of Utah to stand up a program with University of Idaho, and said Brigham Young University is starting a medical school, and referenced Idaho State University's exploration of buying the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine, as reported by Idaho Education News. The committee introduced the bill, teeing it up for a full committee hearing in the coming days — before it would be considered by the full House and Senate. But several committee members had concerns. Rep. Mark Sauter, R-Sandpoint, voted against introducing the bill, saying he believes Idaho should 'keep WWAMI whole and build a good program going forward.' 'I do think that we need to have some leadership in the building and also recognize that there's a lot of things that we don't know,' he said. The bill also directs Idaho to cut at least 10 seats in the WWAMI program starting in the 2027 academic year. In the meantime, the bill directs the Idaho State Board of Education to appoint a working group to develop a plan for Idaho medical education due in January 2026 to the Legislature and Idaho governor. The bill's fiscal note estimates boosting non-WWAMI Idaho medical education seats would cost $512,400 in fiscal year 2027. To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto. Since 1972, Idaho has been part of the WWAMI program to send students to UW's medical school. Through the partnership, Idaho can send 40 medical students to UW each year. But for years, Idaho lawmakers wanted more seats — and some have wanted assurance from the medical school that it is not teaching abortion-related care. The day the Idaho WWAMI termination bill passed committee, UW signed a statement saying it doesn't use Idaho taxpayer dollars 'for abortions or abortion-related activities,' Idaho EdNews reported. After passing a House committee in mid-February, the Idaho WWAMI termination bill has not been voted on by the Idaho House for weeks. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Doctor exchange could end as Idaho may dump UW over ‘Idaho values' and abortion
This story was originally published on The Idaho Legislature could end its 50-year partnership with the University of Washington (UW), which has helped Idahoans train as doctors since 1972. A bill now moving through the Idaho House would replace UW with the University of Utah. Rep. Dustin Manwaring, who sponsored the bill, argues that the current partnership doesn't align with 'Idaho values' and criticized the UW for ignoring requests to increase the number of Idaho students. But the big concern is that the UW would use Idaho taxpayer dollars to teach doctors how to perform abortions. 'I appreciate the University of Washington and the reputation they have for quality. But at the same time, we have a physician shortage in Idaho. We have to address this issue in Idaho, and we have to find new relationships that works for us, and we have to keep and retain more doctors in the state of Idaho,' Manwaring said, according to The Spokesman Review. Related from MyNorthwest: Teachers, supporters rally at the capitol to demand more school funding Concerns over abortion During a recent hearing, UW Vice Dean Suzanne Allen assured the committee that UW would comply with Idaho's abortion laws and support expanding Idaho student involvement. 'The University of Washington does not spend any Idaho funds on abortion care or abortion training,' she said. Under the current program, Idaho students complete their first two years at the University of Idaho, followed by clinical training in any of five states. The bill would phase out Idaho's participation by the 2029-30 school year, with potential new partnerships, including with the University of Utah, are still under discussion. The bill was approved by the House Education Committee and now awaits a vote in the full Idaho House.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Idaho considers end to 50-year physician-training partnership with University of Washington over 'Idaho values'
Feb. 18—The Idaho Legislature is considering a move to end a 50-year partnership with the University of Washington to train future Idaho doctors. Since 1972, Idahoans training to be physicians have been able to do so through the WWAMI system, a partnership between five states that relies on the UW School of Medicine for physician training. A bill headed to the Idaho State House floor would sever the state's ties with UW in favor of a proposed partnership with the University of Utah. Bill sponsor Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, argued before the Idaho House Education Committee last Friday that the state's partnership with the University of Washington does not align Idaho physicians' "medical education with Idaho values." "I appreciate the University of Washington and the reputation they have for quality. But at the same time, we have a physician shortage in Idaho. We have to address this issue in Idaho, and we have to find new relationships that works for us, and we have to keep and retain more doctors in the state of Idaho," Manwaring said. Manwaring claimed that the University of Washington could use Idaho state funds to teach physicians how to perform abortions. He also said calls to increase the number of Idaho students in the partnership had been ignored by UW. At the hearing, UW School of Medicine Vice Dean Suzanne Allen said the school would agree to Idaho's abortion stipulation. "The University of Washington does not spend any Idaho funds on abortion care or abortion training," she said. Allen also said UW hopes to expand the number of Idaho students involved in the program. "We are committed to that expansion. Currently we do not have enough clinical training in the state of Idaho for us to be able to do that expansion. We are working diligently to create more high-quality clinical training opportunities for our students," she said. Idaho medical students currently receive their first two years of training at the University of Idaho in Moscow. They then receive two additional years of clinical training at medical facilities in any of the WWAMI states, including Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Alaska or Montana. There are currently 40 Idaho medical students in the WWAMI partnership each year. If passed, the bill would allow for current University of Idaho students to complete their participation in WWAMI, and Idaho's involvement in the partnership would be phased out by the 2029-30 school year. The state would also need to find a new partnership with other medical schools in the Mountain time zone. While the bill does not outline any new partnerships, Manwaring said talks were ongoing to partner with the University of Utah, which he argues could keep state dollars and Idaho physicians-in-training closer to home. "Right now, the University of Idaho gets $4.45 million and the University of Washington gets $9.38 million, so that's almost 69% that goes to the University of Washington. What we're proposing is a potential partnership with University of Utah, which would flip that on its head. We believe we would be able to keep almost 66% of those dollars in Idaho, and 34% of that would go out of state," he said. The University of Utah currently provides training for 10 Idaho students, but this proposal would bring the number to parity with those currently receiving UW instruction. The partnership would also need approval by the Utah state Legislature. University of Idaho medical professor Rusty Baker said at the hearing such a transfer would be possible. "It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what the University of Washington has done, or that I want it necessarily to change. But if our state Legislature and our board deems that this change needs to happen, then it's our duty to find a way to make sure that physicians are continuously trained in the University of Idaho," Baker said. Other Idaho physicians spoke in opposition to the proposal at the hearing. "WWAMI is not just any other medical training. It is a national leader that is number one in rural training and primary care physician training, which is what Idaho continues to be in dire need of," said Kootenai Health physician Dr. Crystal Pyrak. "The WWAMI program is not just the time spent at the University of Idaho but includes over a hundred teaching sites in wonderful, unique Idaho communities, and really has a great standard of excellence. It will be impossible for any other medical school program to replace it." The bill was approved in a 9-5 committee vote and now waits for debate and a vote in the Idaho House.
