The Public Eye: Sacramento 2-year-old’s death underscores longstanding problems at Child Protective Services Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/06/6299300/sacramento-2-year-olds-death-underscores.html#storylink=cpy

The Public Eye: Sacramento 2-year-old’s death underscores longstanding problems at Child Protective Services

Alive for just two years, William Philyaw was the subject of 10 reports of abuse and neglect filed with Sacramento County Child Protective Services.

The agency was told about an abusive father with a lengthy criminal record and a history ofdrug abuse, a filthy home and a mother unable to protect her children, among other problems.

But in its risk assessments of the toddler’s home, CPS repeatedly recorded inaccurate information, failed to include domestic-abuse reports against the father and omitted the mother’s own history of childhood abuse, The Bee found in a review of William’s 257-page case file.

Even with those omissions, CPS’ risk-assessment system triggered recommendations on four different occasions that social workers take action to stabilize the family situation or to place William in foster care.

Each time, the recommendation was overridden by a social worker and his or her supervisor, and William and his older brother were kept in their Arden Arcade home, according to records obtained through the Public Records Act.

On Nov. 5, two months after the last assessment, 2-year-old William was killed. According to the Sheriff’s Department, William died as a result of blunt-force trauma inflicted by a baby sitter while William’s mother was away for the weekend. Samuel Crutchor is being held in the county jail on a murder charge, along with William’s mother, Tiphanie Williams, who faces a charge of child endangerment.

The case is a textbook example of poor social work because social workers failed to assess the pattern of complaints against William’s parents, according to William Grimm, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland.

His remarks echo a report released in February by the county’s Child Protective Systems Oversight Committee, an independent body of child-welfare and law-enforcement professionals.

In its report for the last fiscal year, the committee reviewed nine cases in which children were killed or nearly killed and found “the mistakes of the past have been repeated” by the county’s long-troubled child welfare agency.

CPS Deputy Director Michelle Callejas said Williams, the mother, was working with a social worker and receiving services in an attempt to make her home safer for her family.

CPS was not aware that Crutchor was acting as a baby sitter, she said.

Crutchor has a criminal record in Monterey County, according to the Sheriff’s Department.

CPS should have removed William from the home at least a year before the boy’s death, said Grimm, who reviewed the case file.

The trigger, he said, should have been when sheriff’s deputies responded to a domestic-abuse call at the family apartment and a deputy noted that William’s father, Thaddeus Philyaw, had a record of arrests for more than a dozen charges, including attempted murder, rape, robbery and child cruelty.

Williams repeatedly allowed Philyaw into her life, despite his history of violence toward her and others, reports to CPS said.

In one report to a sheriff’s deputy, Williams suggested that she did not want to pursue charges against Philyaw because it would have been a third strike that would send him to prison for life.

In October 2012, a sheriff’s deputy responding to a domestic-abuse complaint noted that both Williams’ children were dirty, with blackened feet and a sticky substance on their bodies, and that the apartment smelled strongly of garbage.

“I would have seriously recommended removing the child from the home at that time,” Grimm said.

“CPS needed to say, ‘Prove to me you’re going to keep these men out of your life and protect your children.’ ”

In January 2013, only three months later, Williams told a sheriff’s deputy that Philyaw had attacked her.

She was not injured, but she said she was “tired of him putting his hands on me,” according to the deputy’s report.

Despite the two domestic-abuse reports, a CPS risk assessment that month said “No” to the question of whether there were two or more incidents of domestic abuse in the past year.

Other errors made in the risk assessments included repeated statements that the primary caregiver – Williams – was not a victim of childhood abuse. That was in conflict with CPS records indicating that she had an extensive history of abuse.

Such questions are part of the risk-assessment system, which is used to score a child’s exposure to risk. Four times those assessments showed the risk to be high. Four times the recommendations that social workers act to better protect the children were overridden.

Two of those times, a social worker said the family already was receiving sufficient services to address the risks, although it’s not clear what those services were.

On the other two occasions, the social worker said he or she could not find evidence to support the recommendations that emerged from the risk assessments.

To override such recommendations, a social worker must offer a rationale and have it approved by a supervisor, Callejas said.

Callejas said the Williams case and others have reinforced “the importance of social workers reviewing prior history and taking that into account as they conduct their investigations and complete (risk assessments).”

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/06/6299300/sacramento-2-year-olds-death-underscores.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/06/6299300/sacramento-2-year-olds-death-underscores.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/06/6299300/sacramento-2-year-olds-death-underscores.html#storylink=cpy

PR: Panel finds lapses by Sacramento County social workers

Sacramento County Child Protective Services continues to make mistakes in cases that end up in death or near death, according to an independent report presented to supervisors Tuesday.

In one case, parents left a child with an unsafe caregiver, but a social worker decided that the allegation was unfounded because she didn’t want to punish the parents. Later, the child was murdered after being left with a different but still unsafe caregiver, according to the report by the Child Protective System Oversight Committee, an independent body of child-welfare and law-enforcement professionals.

Since 1996, when the county created the committee following the beating death of 3-year-old Adrian Conway, such cases have been a staple of the committee’s annual reports to the Board of Supervisors. In its report for the last fiscal year, the committee reviewed nine cases in which children were killed or nearly killed and found “the mistakes of the past have been repeated.”

Those mistakes included a failure to exercise proper judgment, follow procedure and communicate with other agencies involved in troubled families’ lives, the report found.

Tuesday’s findings come after Health and Human Services Director Sherri Heller assured the board in October that CPS had made great improvements. “I think it’s accurate to say that CPS is no longer an agency in crisis,” she said at the time.

On Tuesday, Heller and CPS Deputy Director Michelle Callejas did not dispute the oversight report and said it had helped the agency better understand how to improve. However, they added that the agency has made important strides and is “no longer in crisis mode,” in the words of Heller.

Gina Roberson, a commission co-chair, said CPS has been open to the commission’s recommendations and made efforts to implement them. Yet CPS continues to make fundamental mistakes, she said.

“The gap that we have seen over and over is in the critical thinking skills of the social workers,” said Roberson, who works at the Child Abuse Prevention Center.

Supervisors expressed frustration over how some cases have been handled, particularly the one in which parents were found not responsible for a safety violation for leaving their child with an unsafe caregiver. The cases in the report do not include names, dates or other identifying information.

“There’s a contradiction here – the allegation was true but it was unfounded,” said Supervisor Don Nottoli. “What am I missing here?”

Callejas said it’s not unusual for social workers to decide that a case is unfounded even when an investigation shows it should be upheld. Social workers are generally trying to keep the families intact and worry that a founded complaint might lead to the removal of a child from the home, she said.

Still, Callejas called the practice inappropriate, including when it was done in the case reported by the oversight committee. “It was an error,” she said.

Supervisor Phil Serna said the practice suggests that CPS has systemic problems. “I want to know if we have instituted the wrong questions,” he said.

The committee report criticizes the decision not to cite the parents for leaving their child with an unsafe caregiver, saying a “substantiated disposition on the first referral would have provided the young parents with services that might have been beneficial.”

In several cases, the committee found problems with CPS policies and procedures, a shortcoming the committee and other reviewers have repeatedly raised about the agency. The committee report tells the story of an infant who nearly died because policies failed to explain how a social worker should have handled the child’s “mentally unstable and homicidal parent who had made previous attempts to harm the child.”

Callejas conceded that the agency has been unsuccessful in trying to improve its policies and plans to contract with an outside organization to help write new ones to guide the agency’s work.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/25/6189616/panel-finds-lapses-by-sacramento.html

If you have any concerns regarding Family Law in California, please contact us.

Law Offices of Vincent W Davis and Associates

(626) 446-6442

mazer@vincentwdavis.com

www.vincentwdavis.com

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/25/6189616/panel-finds-lapses-by-sacramento.html#storylink=cpy

PR: Memorial service planned for abandoned infant

Earlier this summer, the body of a newborn baby was found in a Roseville park, clearly abandoned by it's caretakers. The public is being welcomed to attend a brief burial services on September 18th.

The service will be held at 10 a.m. at the new Auburn Public Cemetery, 1040 Collins Drive, Auburn.

The baby girl has not yet been identified, her umbilical cord still intact attached to her body. She was found on July 8th by park workers, thrown in a bush at Saugstad Park.

The baby was wrapped in a blanket and plastic bagged before being placed in a box, possibly dead before placement. Police say that there were no signs of injury and that she may have been stillborn.

Press awaits a final autopsy report, and the cause of death is still unknown. No one has come forward to identify.

(Information gathered from http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/04/5705411/memorial-service-planned-for-abandoned.html)

If you have any questions or concerns about Family Law in California, please give us a call.

Vincent W Davis and Associates

mazer@vincentwdavis.com

(626) 446-6442

www.vincentwdavis.com

Letters: On toddlers found wandering in South L.A.

Re "Boys' plight raises red flag," March 12

The article reports that two children, ages 2 and 3, were found on a busy South L.A. street after wandering into a liquor store asking for bread. Their mother was enrolled in a program to help her keep her children while learning to become a better parent.

The article revealed tragic results of a history of generational poverty and deprivation.

In the same paper, we read of rich kids who document their lifestyles on Instagram. They record spending thousands of dollars on lunches and bottles of champagne, projecting an image of cavalier privilege.

I was outraged after reading both articles. Could there be a better depiction of the disparity between the 1% and the 99%?

Donna Wilkinson

Los Angeles

One could not help but pause and compare the recent columns in The Times of the lost and subsequently rescued dog and this piece on the two young boys looking for food.

The previous owners of the dog lost custody after an animal rescue group deemed them unfit and placed the pup in a more responsible household. In contrast, these children were already under direct supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Apparently, the fact that the mother had already lost six older children to foster care had no bearing.

Perhaps an animal welfare group should be assigned to some of these children, as the rescue organizations seem to be better at evaluating homes. And since many of these evaluators are volunteers, the county could save money.

Susan Fredericks-Ploussard

Woodland Hills

Come on. Two toddlers wander the streets looking for food because they can't find any in their filthy house where there's nothing but rotten food in the fridge? This happened because the DCFS doesn't have a computer program to tell them the mother's care is inadequate? Was the human case manager deaf, dumb and blind?

As a licensed clinical social worker I've visited homes like this, and it doesn't take an algorithm to detect neglect. The case manager involved here should be fired for incompetence, period.

Wayne April

Pasadena

How is a mother who lost six other children placed in a program for low-risk families? Adults should only be given so many chances to prove themselves, and six is just too many children lost.

At some point, a child's entitlement to a good quality of life must trump the parents' entitlement to reunification.

Fixing child protection means fixing L.A. County government

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/08/news/la-ol-child-protection-20140408

In August, as the newly formed Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection convened for the first time and members spoke aloud about the kinds of issues they expected they’d have to deal with, appointee Andrea Richnoted that there are certain problems inherent in “running big, awful bureaucracies.” And she ought to know, because as the former president and CEO of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, she once had a front row seat watching county government -- the biggest, most awful bureaucracy around.

But museums are in many respects insulated from that bureaucracy, unlike the Department of Children and Family Services and other offices and agencies that are meant to keep abused and neglected children from needlessly dying. So Rich and her colleagues were in for a sustained jolt over the last eight months as they drilled through the layers of the child welfare system and discovered a directionless and risk-averse government that has lost sight of its mission.

Little of the panel’s work has made the news so far, so few people heard the thunderclap of criticism delivered March 28 at its second-to-last meeting and directed at a Los Angeles County government, its culture, its leaders, its bureaucrats and especially its lawyers. Especially its lawyers.

On paper, Rich’s words seem measured and somewhat academic. It’s necessary to watch or listen to the recording – to Rich’s incredulity, her indignation, perhaps even a hint of anger – to fully appreciate just how blistering her assessment is of the county’s bureaucracy .

“Bureaucracies not carefully managed and consistently improved have characteristics that are destructive to client-oriented services, impede innovation, stifle efforts at self-improvement,” she said. “This sort of narrow span of control and bureaucratic risk-aversion typical of the bureaucratic process constantly thwarts efforts toward meaningful reform. And we’ve seen it over and over in our studies here and in testimony.”

Commission Chairman David Sanders also headed an L.A. County department – the often-criticized Department of Children and Family Services – but he said Monday that he was surprised at the extent of the dysfunction he saw from his new perspective compared with what he saw at DCFS.

Translation: The county is messed up. Efforts to reform the child protection system are doomed without a thorough overhaul – not of DCFS but of the entire county governmental edifice, the way it thinks and the way it works.

So how can that kind of overhaul happen? There are two ways to answer the question. One way is to look at the list of 734 recommendations for improving the child protection system offered to the Board of Supervisors and various county departments over the years that the commission found gathering dust on shelves or at best stalled in some early stage of implementation, and conclude that county government is hopeless.

The other is to look at the looming change in county leadership, with two of the five supervisors leaving office this year – the first time there has been that sweeping a change since Michael D. Antonovich ousted Baxter Ward and Deane Dana booted Yvonne Burke a generation ago, in 1980 – and candidates vying to replace them. Antonovich, still serving on the Board of Supervisors 34 years later, and Don Knabe, who succeeded his boss and mentor Dana, will likewise be replaced in two years.

Los Angeles County can have the exact same government and culture with slightly different faces, or it can embrace an opportunity for new thinking.

It’s fine for candidates to talk about how they would hire more child social workers,  although the county is already on track to do that. Or how they would change deployment, although those kinds of changes are constantly discussed and always seem to be in the works.

In the view of the commission – this is preliminary, because the final report is yet to be adopted – there is an even more global mandate, and while members of the panel may insist that their recommendations are all about ensuring child safety, a closer look suggests that they go to the heart of numerous challenges that this big, awful bureaucracy faces in order to accomplish anything: Explicitly define its mission; put someone in charge of executing it; measure success and failure.

Sitting supervisors may well protest that these things are already being done, and candidates may be puzzled at marching orders that sound more like a homework assignment in an MBA student’s organization behavior class than social work.

But that’s the point. The county has grown and segmented itself so quickly that it has lost its sense of priorities; or rather, its sense of priorities is set by news headlines, scandals, outrages and political campaigns.

In Rich’s words:

“In the absence of a clear vision and strong leadership, all of us who have ever worked in government know that bureaucracies emerge as the default method of solving complex problems and delivering services to large numbers of people. Bureaucracies by their nature tend to be reactive. They solve problems one at a time, seriatim, over time, and they create administrative structures, they start programs and they allocate resources one at a time with no overall perspective. As these reactive solutions multiply, initial problems become obscured and workable solutions difficult if not impossible to identify within the resulting bureaucratic maze.”

The commission’s final meeting is Thursday. Members are expected to consider and adopt final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Los Angeles County must reform DCFS

A press release by Vincent W Davis

June 17th, 2014

Reports are showing that issues with CPS and DCFS -which were supposed to be fixed after a previous investigation- have not disappeared.

Miss Gloria Molina, who is aware of trouble at the agency, claims to have not seen the report.

She say,

"Hopefully we're going to figure out what it's going to take to make some of the changes they might recommend—question them, figure out what it's going to cost, and then start putting those recommendations into place."

She claims to be aware of these issues and that they have been previously identified. She also claims that it would be very challenging to reform such a large system as DCFS, that care for more than 26 thousand children at a time. Many recommendations have been made over the years on how to improve the system, but few have been implemented. 

"It's not that they don't go anywhere, it's always the matter of the challenge we have of how we're going to put them in place,” Molina said. “It's finding locations, finding mechanisms, finding leadership everywhere.”

Mr. Philip Browning, the director of DCFS, defends its performance and claims that many improvements have been made.  

“I know there have been hundreds and hundreds of recommendations that have been provided over the last 4, 5 years. Over 800. And many people don't know that over 96 percent of all of those recommendations have been implemented fully or partially implemented. So we have had as a department hundreds of recommendations that have been given to us by the auditor-controller, by the board of supervisors, by a number of commissions—the vast, vast majority of those recommendations have been implemented."

Mr. Browning implies that to fix the system, other forces must join in, and that DCFS cannot do the job alone. 

"There are a lot of challenges in the county that no one agency can be totally responsible for child protection,” Browning said. “And that health and mental health and DCFS and probation and law enforcement and a whole host of other organizations, private included, have to be responsible for child protection."

(http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/04/10/43420/report-calls-on-la-supervisors-to-implement-major/)

11:18 a.m.: Report calls on LA County supervisors to implement major reforms at troubled DCFS

A draft of a new report finds that there has been little change in the Los Angeles County agency charged with protecting children in foster care and in other vulnerable situations.

The entire draft report from the Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection can be read below. It takes a critical look at the troubled agency. It found that social workers and the children they are charged of caring for have a dysfunctional relationship:

"Many youth reported to the Commission that they could not even reach or trust their social worker – the person that should be their most important safety resource. In eight months of hearing hundreds of hours of testimony, the Commission never heard a single person defend our current child safety system."

The blue ribbon commission was formed after the death of Gabriel Fernandez in Palmdale. The 8-year-old allegedly died at the hands of his mother and her boyfriend. Relatives have accused government workers of not doing enough to protect the child.

Some other findings from the report include:

• No single entity in the County oversees all aspects of child protection. No single entity is held accountable for what happens to children during and after they are in the County’s care. No single entity is charged with integrating resources across departments for the well being of the child.
• County departments that should work together often operate in silos. 
• No County-wide mission or measurable outcomes guides policies and practices. 
• Persistent turnover in the leadership of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has devastated morale and created endless directives. 
• The County child welfare culture reacts to crises, rather than being driven by data.
• Fear of liability preempts sound decision-making by the County and DCFS. 
• Communication among people and agencies is often limited by perceived confidentiality restrictions, to the detriment of child safety and well-being. 
• There is little budget or planning transparency. 
• Children, youth, and families reported disrespectful treatment and exclusion from the decision-making process. 

A 2007 report from the Casey Family Programs Vice-President David Sanders recommends giving greater authority to the DCFS director. Sanders essentially recommended many of the same things that are in the 2014 blue ribbon commission report six years ago.

About eight months later, a county commission on children revisited Sanders report and made similar recommendations. One example: budgeting. In 2008, that commission recommended that DCFS be more transparent with its finances. The goal was to find out if the money is being well spent.

Six years later, the blue ribbon commission report made virtually the same recommendation.  

All of the reports can be read below.

The 2014 commission report makes several recommendations to fix DCFS.

It calls for a county wide mandate to improve child safety. This would require all county entities to work together and with the community to create a new way of doing things. It also argues for "transparency in its finances, practices and outcomes."

The commission also recommends an oversight team. It would be comprised of a variety of community members and a county leader. The team would oversee the implementation of the commission's recommendations and direct L.A. County's CEO to do a number of things. This would include a review all child fatalities due to abuse and neglect within the past three years. It would include all county departments, not just DCFS.  The team would also oversee the implementation of sharing data between county departments to identify risk factors that can lead to child deaths. 

The report also notes DCFS social workers have struggled to find homes for children – sometimes just days old – and have had to keep the children at the Children Welcome Center. The report says supervisors should call for an independent analysis of foster family recruits – who are not related to the children – to see if the system could run more efficiently and effectively.

It also suggests DCFS should develop a computer database to identify available foster homes.

KPCC is reaching out to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for their reaction to the report.

Juvenile Dependency Laws & Processes Update

Experienced California Juvenile Dependency Lawyers

More than any other area of the law, juvenile dependency is constantly evolving. As a result, it is extremely important to retain the services of an attorney who stays current with these changes and who is experienced in handling cases in this specialized area.

At the Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates, our attorneys have successfully represented parents, relatives and foster caregivers in juvenile dependency cases. By familiarizing ourselves with current dependency legislation and recent court rulings, we are able to help protect our clients’ interests and the best interests of the children involved. Contact us for a free consultation.

Staying Current With Changes to Juvenile Dependency Cases

In 2002, more than 38,000 dependency cases were brought before the California courts. In the fiscal year 2006-2007, that number jumped to over 100,000, according to the Judicial Council of California. This drastic increase in cases caused both the state legislature and the state court system to reexamine California’s juvenile dependency laws. Because of this, it is imperative to hire an experienced lawyer. One mistake in procedure can lead to devastating consequences for both parents and children.

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, our experienced team of lawyers and legal staff has remained up-to-date with on the statutes and case law governing dependency procedure. We have a thorough understanding of the juvenile dependency process and changes to common practices including:

• Reunification
• Court hearings
• Termination of parental rights
• Family maintenance
• Child welfare investigations
• And other matters relating to juvenile dependency cases

Advocates for Our Clients’ Interests

If you are involved in a child dependency case, we can help. Our lawyers provide creative, effective solutions based on years of experience and our thorough understanding of California dependency law. We will serve as aggressive advocates on your behalf.

For a free consultation with a California juvenile dependency lawyer, or to learn about recent updates in the law, call us at 888-506-6810 or contact us online. Our offices are open 9am – 7pm, Monday through Friday, and on weekends by appointment.

Juvenile Dependency Process

Purpose of Juvenile Dependency Court

Juvenile Dependency Courts are Superior Courts, just like all other Superior Courts of the County in which they are seated, except they are specially designated “Juvenile Dependency Courts.” These courts’ purpose is to ensure the ongoing safety and welfare of children by hearing and deciding cases involving children who are alleged to have been physically or emotionally neglected and/or abused by their parents, legal guardians or other caretakers.

A “Child” is a “minor,” that is, a person 18 years of age or younger who has not been legally “emancipated” (“Emancipated” means a person under age 18 who has petitioned a court of law to declare him or her to be free of parental control andcustody, essentially an adult not within the custody or control of a parent, legal guardian or other adult caretaker).

What happens after a Child Protective Services agency (CPS), such as the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) or the police place a child in protective custody?

When a police agency intervenes into situations where a child has been allegedly abused or neglected, their chief concern, once the child’s safety is secured, is deciding whether there has been a crime such as child cruelty for which an arrest should be made. When the police “arrest” or detain a child who has been abused or neglected, they turn that child over to the county’s CPS as soon as they can.

The law allows the police or a CPS agency to detain children from their parents or guardians for up to 72 hours for their protection if the Emergency Response Children’s Social Worker (ER-CSW) who initially investigates allegations of abuse or neglect believes that the children are at risk in their homes. Once the CPS detains them, children are usually placed in relative’s homes or in licensed foster homes. In some counties, the CPS places children initially in a central receiving facility, which houses children temporarily, pending placement in foster or relative’s homes. When children are taken into protective custody, ostensibly at least, the CPS social worker will immediately attempt to notify the parent(s) or guardian(s).

A common complaint of parents to their defense attorneys in these proceedings is that they were not told where their kids were taken or anything else other than to be in a certain court on a certain date and time. It is often not until three days later that parents learn what the CPS has done with their children – an awful truth which the CPS invariably denies or explains away.

If the children are not in immediate danger of neglect or abuse at the time of the CPS’s investigation of the allegations, and are living with a parent, relative, or friend, they may be allowed to remain there pending the court proceedings. However, past abuse or neglect may be indicative of a risk of future abuse or neglect. If there is a history, such as were the child tells the ER-CSW of repeated instances past abuse or neglect, even though he might appear unharmed and safe at the time of the initial investigation by the CPS, the child will be detained and a dependency case initiated.

Referrals if Children to the CPS

“Referrals” are tips or complaints made by telephone or otherwise by normal citizens, neighbors, friends, relatives of a child, and so on, or by “mandated reporters.”

Mandated Reporters under the law include School Teachers, Therapists, police officers, social workers, medical personnel and other predictable sorts of professionals. Mandated reporters are required by law to report any sorts of child abuse or neglect.

When the children are placed in protective custody and taken from the home, there must be an investigation to decide whether the children can be safely returned to the home from which they were taken. The first investigation is made by the social worker in the Intake Unit of the Department of Social Services. If the social worker decides during her initial investigation that the children are not significantly at risk for abuse or neglect, the children should be allowed to remain with their parents or guardians.

There may or may not be court action taken, depending upon the level of risk which the social worker discerns during the initial investigation. She might recommend that a petition be filed to declare the child a dependent despite there being not enough risk to detain him, but the usual course is for the social worker in such a case to either take no action, in which she will close the case or follow up and then close it, or ask the parents or guardians to enter a “Voluntary Family Maintenance Agreement “(VFM).

A VFM is a contract between the parents or caretaker and the CPS agency whereby the CPS agrees not to detain the child or file a petition in the juvenile court in exchange for the parents or guardians agreeing to attend parenting education and perhaps various other sorts of counseling programs. If the parent(s) abide by the Agreement for six months, or once they complete the programs required by the CPS agency, no further action will be taken. If there is another report of neglect or abuse of the children, or the parent(s) fail to abide by the Agreement, the children can be removed from the home again, and a Petition may be filed with the Juvenile Court.

Should a Parent Decline a VFM?

Sometimes the parents or guardians would be better off if they took their chances by declining a VFM and requiring the CPS to prove their case in the juvenile court. The reason is, in cases where the CPS is amenable to offering a VFM, excluding cases where the parents have been placing their children at risk by using drugs, the great likelihood is that they would not be able to meet their burden of proof for either removing the child (clear and convincing evidence at the Dispositional stage) or even sustaining a petition alleging that the parents or guardians have abused or neglected them (preponderance of the evidence).

If it happens to you, it should be obvious to you if you will only remain calm and objective and not allow yourself to be bullied into signing a VFM so that the government can supervise the manner in which you parent your children when you know you should not have to, that you have neither abused nor neglected your kids.

The great temptation here is to digress into an expose of various parents’ absurd experiences trying to get their kids back from the clutches of CPS agencies, which sometimes operate like steamrollers over families when juvenile courts put complete faith in them and doubt the parents’ and children’s reports of CPS’ bad conduct.

If the ER-CSW decides that the children she is investigating must be removed immediately from their home because they are at risk serious harm due to severe abuse or neglect, then those children will placed in “shelter care” (foster homes, group homes, a relative’s home) and they will remain out of their parents’ or guardians’ home pending the initial court hearing.

Within 72 hours of detaining the children, the CPS is required to file a “Petition” (statement of allegations, akin to a criminal complaint, which if found to be true, would provide the Juvenile Court a lawful basis under WIC section 300, to assert jurisdiction over the children) in the Juvenile Court, and the court is required to conduct an “Arraignment/Detention Hearing” in order to arraign the parents or guardians on the petition (allow them to enter an admission [almost never] or a denial) to the allegations after having the allegations read to them by the court (or waive having them read).

The Arraignment/Detention Hearing is the First Hearing

The Players

• Generally, the CPS agency is represented by a county’s Office of the County Counsel. However, the District Attorney may likewise do the job. Not every county has a County Counsel, but all have DA’s. These are the prosecutors who try to convince the court that it is necessary to take jurisdiction over a child and his family by declaring the child a juvenile dependent of the court.
• If there is more than one child, it is possible that each one will have a separate attorney appointed to represent them, depending upon whether there is or appears possibly to be or that there might develop a conflict of interest between the kids.
• Each parent or guardian who does not hire her own attorney and bring that attorney in to court will be appointed an attorney to represent her.
• Appointed attorneys for the kids and the parents generally are on court panels and tend not only to work before the same bench officer (judge, commissioner or referee) every day. Still, they try to remain objective and to do a good job. Try and do, however, are two different things. It is hard not to try to please the judge who feeds you and these attorneys are almost always way overburdened with little time to spend on any one case.

The initial hearing occurs within 72 hours when a child is detained from his parents. If not, the hearing has no particular time when it must occur. In either event, the CPS agency is required to provide the parents or guardians proper notice of the hearing, which means in a manner and within a time period, which will provide them a meaningful opportunity to appear and to be heard. When a parent shows up at court, he or she will generally first check in with the court’s Bailiff, a Deputy Sheriff assigned to that courtroom. The Bailiff usually unlocks the courtroom at 8:30 a.m. and takes roll to determine which people have shown up and for which cases.

After Checking in, the parents, friends and families of the children wait outside of the courtroom until their case is called. If the child has not been detained, or if he has been detained with a relative who has brought him to court, then he waits outside of the courtroom too.

Parties and others may not enter the courtroom to hear cases of children in whom they have no interest because the proceedings are “confidential,” supposedly to protect the privacy of the children. However, the reality it the confidentiality laws work only to protect the social workers, foster caretakers and others responsible for providing care to detained dependent children from pubic scrutiny of the manner in which they handle and provide care for the children. The confidentiality laws are the one aspect of the juvenile dependency system, which, if eliminated entirely, or modified so that they only protected exposure of children’s names to the public, would bring accountability to the troubled system and truly improve the conditions in which the state raises children for whom it has substituted itself as parent.

How Long Will it Take to Reach Court?

Juvenile dependency courts have 40 to 45 cases on calendar each day, so it can make for a long day of waiting before one’s case is called for a hearing. Before a parent’s or guardian’s child’s case is initially called, an attorney appointed by the court to represent the parent or guardian, or to be appointed during the hearing, will come out to speak with the parent or guardian, hopefully to learn what happened from the parent’s perspective and to map out a strategy for handling the case and getting the kids home.

What Happens During the Arraignment/Detention Hearing?

During the Arraignment/Detention hearing, the parents, each of whom has a separate attorney appointed to represent them unless the parents have privately retained an attorney to represent one or both of them will generally waive reading of the petition and enter a denial of the allegations against them. Thereafter, their attorney might argue for the release of the parent’s child.

Sometimes courts agree that there is not prima facie evidence to support the detention where it is clear that the child is highly unlikely to suffer harm if released to the parent pending further hearings. The social workers will be permitted to make unannounced inspections of the parent’s home and child if a release is granted. On very rare occasions, the juvenile court might even dismiss a CPS petition at this early stage, though case law (decisions by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court) states that a court has to allow CPS its day in court and may not dismiss at the A/D hearing (even though that can be the CPS’s day in court too when the petition is based upon nothing evidentiary, which does happen occasionally.

What Happens After the Original Hearing?

In the normal case, the court orders the detention to continue pending the next hearing. The next hearing could be a “No Time Waiver Trial.” An NTW is one, which occurs within 15 calendar days if the child is detained and 30 days if he has been released to his parent. The next hearing usually is set by the parents’ attorneys for a “Pre-Trial Resolution Conference (PRC). That hearing may include a “mediation” by a neutral third person wherein the neutral attempts to get the parties to settle without resort to trial, or not.

If the PRC does not include mediation, then it is an informal negotiation of the CPS’s petition allegations and the possible disposition orders if the petition is not going to be dismissed, which it rarely is.

The Jurisdictional Hearing

The PRC comes at the second or third hearing, which is the Jurisdictional Hearing. It is the third hearing if there has been a “Detention Rehearing,” which is held within three court days of the original detention hearing at the request of a parent or guardian for purposes of cross-examining the social worker who detained the child about her reasons and the need for the detention.

It can also be the third hearing, maybe the fourth, if the court conducts what is called a “Pre-Release Investigation (PRI) Hearing.” That is a hearing for purposes of the CPS reporting to the court its efforts to place a child with a particular relative of the child as requested by the parents. Some courts call the CPS’s responsibilities to attempt to place detained kids with their relatives, “361.3 and 4″ obligations and a hearing to consider their efforts a “361.3 and 4 hearing.”

What is the Purpose of the Jurisdiction Hearing?

The Jurisdiction Hearing is for purposes of having the court determine whether the CPS’s petition allegations of abuse or neglect concerning a child are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and if so, whether the allegations are of a nature, which are legally sufficient to support state intervention on behalf of the child. The Jurisdiction Hearing provides the basis for state intervention into a family. The disposition hearing addresses where the child will live and identifies the services to be offered to the child and the parent(s).

Are Jurisdictions Hearings Ever Contested?

Jurisdiction Hearings may be uncontested negotiated settlements, or they may be contested court trials (no juries).

The Disposition Hearing “Dispo”

The Disposition Hearing is usually conducted on the same court day and immediately following the Jurisdiction Hearing, especially where the petition was settled by negotiation. If it is contested, it is usually on the heels or even concurrent with the Jurisdiction Hearing. However, a court might separate the two hearings and continue the Dispo where only that hearing is contested, or to receive results of an Evidence Code section 730 Psychological or Custody Evaluation, or to allow the parents a chance to enroll in programs as a predicate to returning the child at dispo, for instance.

Whatever the case, without any question, the Disposition Hearing is the most critical hearing of all or the multiple types of hearings that occur during dependency proceedings. During dispo, the court decides whether to assert jurisdiction and thus to make a child a dependent, whether and what sort of reunification and visitation orders to make, and so on.

Disposition is the first hearing from which an appeal may be taken in order to challenge any of the findings and orders made to that point. In certain circumstances, as delineated in WIC section 361.5, the court might bypass reunification efforts at disposition and set a hearing to determine a permanent plan for a child, including possibly terminating his parents’ rights so that he can be adopted.

Why Hire an Experienced Attorney?

Much can happen at disposition. This is the hearing where inexperienced attorneys do their most harm to parents, guardians, relatives of children and to the children themselves. Parent-Child relationships and lives are often destroyed at disposition by rookies who do not do what they should or must. But, parents and others may not even know until it is too late to do anything about it.

In this area, juvenile dependency, it is more critical than in any other that people have experienced, knowledgeable attorneys. In no other area are the consequences of mistakes so undetectable for those who do not know how to discern that they occurred, and in no other area of law are the consequences of mistakes potentially so grave. A parent may end up getting his parental rights terminated because his attorney failed early on, at the dispo phase, to make the right argument, ask for the right thing, appeal a bad decision, and so forth.

The Reunification/Service Plan

Reunification Services are known to attorneys in the business as “FR.”

The Reunification/Service Plan or Case Plan tells the parent(s) what s/he needs to do to resolve the problems that brought the children’s case before the Juvenile Court. This plan may include parenting classes, various types of counseling and possibly drug/alcohol, testing, visitation requirements, and so on. The CPS suggests the case plan, but the court’s dispo orders are the Reunification Case Plan.

Review Hearings

Six month review hearings are conducted under WIC sections 366.21 (know and the “two-one-f”) and 366.22 (known as the “two-two”). The Court is required to review the status of each dependent child regularly, at least every six months. It may set as many interim progress hearings as it desires.

Prior to each review, the assigned services social worker will prepare a report and submit it to the court. This report describes the services offered/provided to the parents to correct the problems, which resulted in the child becoming a dependent of the Juvenile Court. It also discusses the parents’ progress and cooperation in these services.

The CPS is required to make “reasonable efforts” to reunify parents and children, and the court is required to find at these review hearings that the CPS did so. If not, the court may extend services beyond the statutory limits of 12 months maximum for kids under age three at the time of detention, and 18 months for kids over three when they were detained.

If the child is with the parents, the six month review is conducted pursuant to WIC section 364, and the CPS will then report on the continuing necessity of supervision. If the child is out of the home, it reports on whether the child can be returned to the parents or on the development of an alternative permanent plan if the child cannot be returned. If the report indicates that the family problems are resolved, the Court may terminate dependency at this time.

If the problems remain, which require the help of the Department of Health and Human Services, dependency will continue. Six month reviews occur as long as the child remains a dependent, but after a maximum of three, the six month reviews become known as Reviews of Permanent Plans (or “RPP”) Hearings and the court conducts them under 366.3.

Does the Age of the Child Make a Difference in Review Hearings?

If at the 366.21(e) (“two-one-e”) hearing, the first six month review, a child under three when he was detained cannot, by a preponderance of the evidence, be returned to his parent, the court will terminate FR and set a hearing under WIC section 366.26 in order to establish a permanent plan other than return to the parent for the child. For kids over three at the time of removal, the parents get 12 months before the court can terminate FR. The courts can for a maximum f 12 months for kids under three, and 18 months for kids over three when they were detained initially.

Can a Parent Challenge the Court’s Decision after a Review Hearing?

If a parent wishes to challenge a court’s decision to terminate FR ad set a 366.26 (“two-six”) hearing, he must do so by a petition for alternative writ. A parent has seven days to file a Notice of Intent to file a Writ Petition, and not long after the record (clerk and reporter’s transcripts) to submit a written brief, petition for writ.

What Happens to the Child if Parental Rights are Terminated?

At the WIC section 366.26 hearing, the court will select termination of parental rights and adoption for a child if it is able, because that is the preferred permanent plan for a child under the law. If not, then legal guardianship is the second choice because it also is a fairly permanent plan. Least favored of the three possibilities is long term foster care, which provides the child no certainty of placement at all.

Contact an Experienced Juvenile Dependency Attorney

These are the nutshell basics of Juvenile Dependency. With these rules and facts, you can understand most of what is going on in and out of court and you will have a better chance of successfully reunifying with your child, and much sooner. For more information, or to speak with an experienced lawyer about your case, please contact Link to Contact Us the Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates today.

Family Law: Divorce

Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer

Arcadia, Beverly Hills and La Mirada Divorce Attorneys

The effects of divorce, especially when the divorce involves children, last far longer than the divorce process itself. The consequences of marital dissolution can affect all members of the family and can last a lifetime.

Se habla español ▪ Мы Говорим по-Русски ▪ We speak Chinese ▪ We speak Vietnamese ▪ Free consultation ▪ Six convenient locations

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, our divorce attorneys listen to our clients’ needs and concerns, their fears and hopes for life after divorce. We craft solutions to the tricky problems of divorce so that our clients can create hopeful futures for themselves and their children. In doing this, we always fight strenuously on behalf of our clients’ rights and interests.

Our divorce attorneys represent clients in family law matters involving:

• Divorce
• Child custody and visitation
• Child support
• Spousal support
• Division of property
• Child abuse and neglect
• Legal separation
• Dissolution of marriage
• And others

Using Divorce Laws for the Benefit of Our Clients

In matters of divorce, our lawyers seek to protect the rights and interests of our clients and their children. Every marriage is different, and every divorce is different. As skilled negotiators, we frequently reach dissolution of marriage agreements through negotiation and mutual agreement, which protects our clients’ rights and can provide beneficial outcomes. Other times, filing for a divorce means standing up for the rights of our clients in court – and we are prepared to fight to obtain fair and just rulings in property division and child custody cases.

For a free initial consultation with a divorce lawyer in the Glendale and greater Los Angeles area, call the Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates at 888-506-6810 or contact us online. Our offices are open 9 am – 7 pm, Monday through Friday, and on weekends by appointment.