Authorities: Boy, 4, dead after accidental shooting

A 4-year-old boy died after he took a gun to his room and it accidentally discharged, hitting him in the head in Merrillville, Ind. police said.

It happened at 8:11 a.m. in the 6400 block of Cleveland Street, when the child took a gun from the bedroom of his parents and went back to his room with the gun, which discharged and hit him in the head, police said in a statement.

The child, Cash Irby, Jr. was pronounced dead at 8:47 a.m. at Methodist Hospitals Southlake Campus after authorities responded to his home at the Cleveland Street address, according to the Lake County, Ind. coroner's office.

Cash suffered a gunshot wound to the head during an accidental shooting, according to the coroner's office.

Both parents were home at the time as well as two siblings – a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old, police said.

An investigation is under way by police and Child Protective Services.

rsobol@tribune.com

Twitter:@RosemarySobol1

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.

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.

Family Law: Child Custody

Los Angeles Child Custody Lawyer

Los Angeles Child Custody Lawyers

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, our attorneys know that for our clients nothing is more precious to them than their children. So in matters of child custody and visitation, we fight with determination and resolve to protect the interests of our clients and the interests of their children.

Vincent W. Davis & Associates represents clients in matters involving:

• Child custody
• Visitation rights
• Fathers’ rights
• Grandparent, sibling, and stepparent visitation rights
• Child custody modifications
• And related issues

California law distinguishes legal custody of children from physical custody. The general preference of family courts is to award legal custody – covering major decisions involving education, religion, and health care – to both parents. Physical custody – the primary residence of a child – is often given to one parent, with visitation rights or parenting time granted to the other parent.

Fighting for Our Clients’ Rights

The court always decides custody matters based on “the best interests of the child,” but critical factors can sway the court’s decision. Lifestyle, parental fitness, psychological health, chemical dependency, and other issues can influence the court’s decision in awarding custody.

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, our Los Angeles child custody lawyers stand up for our clients’ rights and interests, and those of their children. In countless cases our attorneys have successfully asserted the rights of fathers, mothers, grandparents, and other parties in child custody and visitation matters.

Your future, and that of your children, may depend on the lawyer you choose to represent you. Our child custody attorneys have the experience, knowledge of the law, and skill needed to prevail in custody and visitation cases. Whatever your family law problem, we can help you.

For a free initial consultation with child custody lawyers in the 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.

Family Law: Child Visitation

Los Angeles Visitation Attorney

Los Angeles Child Visitation Lawyers

Divorce should not destroy a parent’s bond with a child. At Vincent Davis & Associates, we care about our clients and their future. Our attorneys work to ensure that you maintain your relationship with your children.

Visitation or parenting time is crucial to maintaining this relationship. We carefully listen to your needs and concerns so we can negotiate a plan that works for you. Contact us today for a free consultation.

Many cases involving child custody and visitation can be settled out of court using mediation. This process allows for open dialogue between the parents and helps establish a plan that is mutually agreeable. If a trial becomes necessary, our attorneys are prepared to protect your interests as a parent and fight for the best interests of your children.

At Vincent Davis & Associates we understand that critical factors can sway a court’s decision in child visitation matters.Domestic violence, lifestyle, work status and other issues can have influence on the decision.

Likewise, certain factors may arise that call for modification of the original visitation plan. Factors affecting visitation include:

• Parent marries a chemically dependent spouse
• Parent moves to a different city or state
• Parent loses his or her job

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

Family Law: Child Support

Los Angeles Child Support Attorney

Los Angeles Child Support Lawyers

Leading child support attorneys in the Los Angeles area, Vincent W. Davis & Associates helps clients by determining the proper level of child support which parents must pay, and obtaining modifications in child support requirements. Our experienced attorneys advocate effectively for our clients’ wishes and work for the best interests of our clients’ children.Contact us to discuss your needs and concerns today.

California child support guidelines are determined by a mathematical formula. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Think again.

Numerous factors determine the level of child support including the incomes of both parents, the number of children, the federal tax filing status of the parties, whether a wage earner is self-employed, job-related expenses a parent pays, and so on. Over time, any of these may change – for example, the income of a parent may change due to job loss, illness, or promotion – resulting in a different child support requirement.

A Child Support Checkup Could Be Worth Thousands of Dollars

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, our attorneys use the latest software to accurately calculate child support requirements down to the penny. For only $69.95, we will provide you with complete and accurate analysis of the child support level that applies to you.

If you think you are paying too much in child support or receiving too little, we can tell you. In a few minutes in our offices, our analysis could save — or gain for your child — thousands of dollars in child support over time. If we do find that your child support payment can be changed, our lawyers can go to court on your behalf to seek a modification of a child support order.

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

Family Law: Paternity

Los Angeles Paternity Lawyer

Arcadia, California Paternity Lawyers

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, we represent clients throughout Los Angeles County and Orange County who seek to test paternity of a child. Our attorneys understand the importance of establishing a biological connection to a child and we believe in our clients’ cause. If you deny paternity, a test can rule it out and spare you support payments.

We guide our clients through every step, from filing for paternity to seeking visitation rights or child support. Contact our offices today for a free consultation.

Important for Mothers, Fathers and Children

Establishing paternity is important for both the father and the mother of a child. If paternity is proved, the mother can file to collect child support. The father can fight for child custody and visitation rights. Our attorneys represent both parents. We passionately represent our clients throughout the process.

Children also benefit greatly from knowing their biological parents. Establishing paternity is the seed for a lifelong parent/child relationship. In addition, children can collect child support and inherit assets. They also gain access to their father’s health insurance coverage and health records.

Paternity Process

Paternity results depend on collecting DNA. At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, we can help file the paperwork for a court-ordered blood test or mouth swab from the suspected father. DNA collection is painless and takes little time to complete.

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

Family Law: Property Division

Los Angeles Property Division Attorney

Los Angeles Marital Property and Division of Assets Attorneys

Many of our clients have homes or businesses they do not want to lose. They may be worried about adjusting to single life, including finding a new home or a new job.

At Vincent W. Davis & Associates, we care about our clients’ futures. Whether you are hoping to keep the house or the car, we are here to help you. Our attorneys are skilled divorce lawyers and strive to reach a fair settlement for our clients.Contact us today for a free consultation at any of our California offices.

Equitable Division of Community Property

Orange County and all of California follows the community property rule. This means that property acquired during the marriage is subject to equitable division during a divorce. Any property or asset acquired before marriage is not shared. If you acquired significant assets before your marriage, we can file with the court to have them officially declared free from division, thus ensuring their safety.

Hiding Assets is Illegal

Many assets are subject to equitable division during a divorce. These assets include pension plans, retirement accounts, property, business assets and investments. It is illegal to hide any of these assets from your ex-spouse. If you feel your ex-spouse is hiding important assets, we can subpoena documents to prove your case.

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

Family Law: Domestic Violence

Los Angeles Domestic Violence Lawyer

Los Angeles Victims of Domestic Violence Lawyers

California law treats domestic violence as a very serious charge. As experienced California domestic violence attorneys, the firm of Vincent W. Davis & Associates has successfully represented many victims of domestic abuse and has defended many who have been accused of domestic violence.

Representing Victims of Domestic Violence

If you or a family member has suffered physical abuse or threats, our Los Angeles attorneys can go to court on the victim’s behalf to obtain a Protective Order, also called a restraining order. This enforceable order of the court can prevent or restrict the perpetrator from contact with the victim. If the abuse involves children and is serious enough to warrant change in child custody or child visitation, we can represent you in court to obtain modifications of these previous orders.

Spousal and child abuse deserve quick and effective responses – before the problem worsens and the behavior grows more violent. Our abuse attorneys can act fast to protect you or members of your family.

Representing Those Accused of Domestic Violence

In California, if you are found guilty of domestic abuse you could face serious penalties. Depending on the severity of the case and the effectiveness of your attorney, these penalties could range from attendance at anger management classes, to loss of child custody and visitation rights, to jail time.

As experienced criminal defense attorneys, we represent clients who have been accused of domestic abuse. We use our experience, our knowledge of the law, and our understanding of the court system to provide the best defense possible in Los Angeles. A spousal battery attorney must not only defend the client’s freedom – the successful domestic violence lawyer also must defend the client’s child custody orchild custody or child visitation rights.

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

Our lawyers have defended the rights and interests of many people in your situation, and we can defend you.

For a free initial consultation with a Los Angeles spousal battery attorney at the Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates, or to discuss any other domestic abuse situation, call us at 888-506-6810 or contact us online. Our offices are open 9 am – 7 pm, Monday through Friday, and on weekends by appointment.