HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08081995 - C126 C.123, C.124, C.125,
and C.126
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 8, 1995 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.123 LETTER from Gwen Regalia, Chair, TRANSPAC Committee, and Barbara
Guise, Chair, TRANSPLAN Committee, dated July 20, 1995, requesting
Contra Costa County review the 1969 Precise Alignment Map for Marsh Creek
Road for possible amendment. The letter also requests the Board of
Supervisors, TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN be informed of the results of the
review within six months.
**** REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
C.124 LETTER from State Senator Nicholas Petris, Ninth Senatorial District, State
Capitol, Suite 5080, Sacramento, CA 95814, dated July 21, 1995, supporting
Assembly Bill 997, (Hauser), and the progress of the measure into the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
****REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
C.125 LETTER from Michael S. McGill, Chief of Staff, on behalf of U.S. Senator
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510-0504, dated
July 21, 1995, advising of Senator Feinstein's position regarding California
water policy.
****REFERRED TO WATER COMMITTEE
C.126 LETTER from Donna Signorelli, 3957 Harmon Road, El Sobrante, CA 94803,
dated July 23, 1995, on statewide judicial reform regarding child abuse and
neglect.
****REFERRED TO SOCIAL SERVICES
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as
noted (****) are APPROVED.
1 hereb;•certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
C.C. Correspondents Hoard of Supeylsors
Ot to s
hown.
APLC ! s ,
Public Works - Director H sT LOR,Gerk of th a
nd
of Supervisors and unty Administrator
Community Development - Director .�/`
Water Committee By ,uJ dt-� 1. .--uty
Social Services
Transportation Commitee
�,�zG
Gs�� ,zsa� 1�'"`" y5
The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Child Abuse Issues RECEIVE®
1 The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building 51
2 651 Pine Street lith Floor
Martinez CA 94553-1229
(510) 646-4080 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
(510) 646-4098 (FAX) CONTRA COSTA CO.
July 23 , 1995 '
S Board of Supervisors:
6
7 The following recommendations are excerpted from a position
8 paper currently investigating the need for statewide judicial
reform with respect to the best interests of the child.
9
Problems: Child abuse and neglect cases can be identified as
10 of three main categories: definite, suspected, and
ignored. In all three categories, cases result
11 either in damaged or dead children.
12 In cases where children are at risk and in risk, the criter-
13 is should be that the children are protected, that further endan-
11 germent to them is stopped, that adults act to protect the best
interests of the child, and .that a viable system of accountabili-
ty is in place. The problem is that several factors can act to
16
mitigate the above.
17
It is the position of The Custody Project that there are
1$ several ways to improve the judicial system so .that it may better
19 serve children and their best interests. These include sensitive
20 and sophisticated accountability and training measures.
2.1 A system of accountability must be created to assess the
22 safety of children at risk, .particularly after court mandated
23 visitation and custody awards are put in place.
24 This system of accountability must be neutral, objective and
25 capable of independent assessment.
26 An accountability system must be used as part of a check-
27
28 .
1
and-balance system capable of terminating court personnel (in-
t
cluding judges) who place protective parents and their children
33
at risk and at further risk. Considerations should include:
� y
S 1) The child's life and safety takes preeminence over the
visitation schedule.
6 2) The court shall be held accountable for the visitation
schedule it imposes.
7 3) In the event of further damage to a child as a result
of a court-imposed visitation schedule, that court and
8 all court personnel will be held responsible and lia-
ble for the further endangerment and/or death of that
child and/or protective parent.
9 4) Court decisions which occasion the death of protective
parents and the death of children shall be a matter
10 of public record and publication (i.e. no gag orders
hushing these cases up) , and shall be prosecuted leg
11 ally.
12
Court personnel, including judges, must be removed
13 1) if the accountability system, including statistical
1 ,1 analyses of their caseload, show that their decisions
place children at risk and in risk; and
, 15. 2) Court personnel must undergo yearly evaluations to
determine their biases, their mental and emotional
16 I health, their capacity to protect children, etc.
17
Recommendations:
1$ a) Anonymous surveys and statistics
19 b) Analysis of the track records of personnel
c) Yearly publication of the track record of
20 personnel
d) Thorough training
e) Yearly multi-disciplinary psychological and
21 emotional testing to eliminate biases which- work
against conscientious investigation of claims
22 that children are in risk and/or at risk.
f) Mandatory polygraphic examinations for court
23 . personnel involved in protecting children.
g) Continued training of all personnel.
24 Further tools available to protect children:
25
26a) Sensitive investigation,
27
28
1
b) Supervised visitation,
2 c) Suspended visitation.
d) Federal Witness Protection Program to, protect and en-
sure the lives of children and their protective parents
who are living in extreme risk.
5 With respect to protectingchildren, the nature of the
6 problem is so serious, the following recommendations are submit-
ted:
$ 1. Yearly certification of all personnel, including those in
all branches of the judicial system, . whose work includes
contact and effect on children.
9
2. Yearly psychological and emotional testing of all personnel,
10 including those in all branches of the judicial system,
whose work includes contact and effect on children.
11
3 . Scientific yearly surveys to assess how children and the
12 parents fare subsequent to contact with the personnel of the
judicial system. Surveys are to be filled out by all judi-
13 cial personnel and by parents and, if possible, by their
children. These surveys will require anonymity to protect
11 against court retaliation.
4. Yearly case analyses utilizing tools including scientific
1S surveys and statistical analyses to ensure safety to
children and elimination of bias.
5. An Internal Affairs Review Board empowered to investigate
17 and to address issues including the following: internal
corruption, bias, lack of diligence and therefore all cases
18 in which children remain at risk and in risk subsequent to
judicial personnel cbntacts.
19 Specifically, a sensitive and thorough investigation would
include studying the police reports, the CPS reports, the
20 FCS reports, the medical data and reports, the reports of
experts, the eyewitness accounts of lay people and family
2.1 members, the trial transcripts, exhibits, court orders, .
etc. , and conducting thorough interviews.
22
6. Those personnel, including judges, who by their decisions,
23 leave children in or at continued risk, require immediate
training or dismissal.
z4
25 Public Accountability Includes:
267. When there is system failure (or individual failure) to
27
28 .
. 3
1 .
protect children, the development of a central "complaint
2 center" so that those judges, experts, CPS personnel, FCS
personnel, medical personnel, therapists, etc. , will be
3 registered as failing to protect and this information must
be public.
8. The court shall be held accountable for the visitation
S schedule it imposes. When there is system failure to pro-
tect children, there should be developed a system of fines,
6 so that those judges, experts, CPS personnel , FCS personnel ,
medical personnel, etc. , will be publicly fined. The fines
7 would be levied in accordance with the degree of .failure to
protect. The death of a child, for example, would be levied
$ at $500,000.00 minimum for the judge who tried the case plus
charges.
9
The above recommendations are in accordance with those
10 below:
11 a) yearly statistics and surveys - anonymous if necessary
- which track the safety of at-risk children;
12
b) the results of the statistics and surveys are made
13 public, including which judges and which court person-
nel are best protecting children as determined by the
is percentage of children who live unharmed henceforth.
C) a check and balance system in which the decisions of
�S judges may be double-checked and reversed, if necessa-
ry, if bias and/or poor judgment is shown which places
16 i children at risk; [parents should not have to wait
through a prolonged appeal which can consume well over
17 another year when their child(ren) is/are at risk and
in danger] .
18 d) that through statistics and surveys, judges and person-
19 nel are removed who refuse to protect the safety and
best interests of children;
20 e) . that through statistics and surveys, judges and person-
nel are removed who remove custody from parents who
21 endeavor to protect their children;
22 f) that through statistics and surveys, judges and person-
nel are removed who employ retaliatory and/or negligent
23 measures (1) against parents who endeavor to protect
their children, and (2) against the children them-
24 selves.
23 g) that judicial decisions do not place children and pro-
tective parents at. further risk but rather, that judi-
26 cial decisions err on the side of conservatism.
27
28
1
h) that judges and other court-related personnel receive
2 yearly training and full psychological evaluations to
ascertain their competency to assess cases in which
3, children are at risk, and to ascertain the biases which
will mitigate against protecting children.
6
7 Donna Signorelli
8 3957 Harmon Road
E1 Sobrante CA 94803
(510) 223-3432
9
10 The' Custody Project
11
12
13
1.1
1S.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 \bias\41-45
20
27
28 �