## Facts

- A certified class of foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Georgia challenged alleged systemic failures in the provision of legal representation in juvenile-court deprivation and termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) proceedings.
- Plaintiffs alleged the counties funded and staffed too few child-advocate attorney positions, producing caseloads so high that effective representation was functionally impossible on a class-wide basis.
- Record evidence included caseload data indicating roughly five child-advocate attorneys for about 914 foster children in DeKalb County and four child-advocate attorneys for about 1,757 foster children in Fulton County.
- Plaintiffs submitted attorney testimony describing minimal client contact and inadequate preparation, including testimony that an attorney did not meet or speak to most child clients, did not routinely review records, and often did not know clients’ whereabouts.
- Plaintiffs sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief requiring adequate and effective legal representation for children in deprivation and TPR matters.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that county funding and staffing practices resulted in a present, systemic denial of adequate and effective legal representation for foster children in deprivation and TPR proceedings.
2. Whether Fulton and DeKalb Counties were entitled to summary judgment on claims that their practices violated Georgia statutory rights to counsel and due process under the Georgia Constitution.

## Decision

- The court denied Fulton County’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court denied DeKalb County’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that caseload evidence and child-advocate testimony created triable issues on whether representation was structurally ineffective and thus violated asserted statutory and state constitutional protections.
- The claims against the counties for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief were permitted to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the nonmovant presents evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to find a current, systemic violation; disputed facts about institutional performance typically require trial resolution.
- Georgia statutes providing a right to counsel in deprivation and TPR proceedings may be violated if counsel is appointed in name but structural conditions (including chronic understaffing and excessive caseloads) prevent basic representational functions.
- Evidence that attorneys cannot meet clients, locate them, or review records can support a finding that the right to counsel is effectively denied, not merely imperfectly provided.
- In institutional-reform litigation, quantitative staffing/caseload data combined with practitioner testimony can establish genuine disputes over whether a government-funded representation system is constitutionally or statutorily adequate.

## Conclusion

The court denied summary judgment to Fulton and DeKalb Counties because plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence—especially extreme caseloads and attorney testimony of minimal client contact and preparation—to raise genuine disputes of material fact that county funding and staffing practices rendered foster children’s representation in deprivation and TPR proceedings effectively inadequate under Georgia statutory rights to counsel and state due process.


Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 356 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Ga. 2005)