Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04082008 - C.30 I I . 1 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA .COSTA COUNTY 06 'I BOARD ACTION: Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Boai•d of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action, All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. i7�6JE II�7WD you is your notice of the action taken 1illllli on your claim by the Board of MAR 12 ZOOS Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), COUNTY COUNSEL given Pursuant to Government Code ry MARTINEZ CALIF. AMOUNT: Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all F"6b° "Warnings". CLAIMANT: ��(,LLCGI� —` � ATTORNEY: Vq & DATE RECEIVED: ADDRESS: pZ'`� �I, C�(xJ � pr BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: C(� Pt� bq4ZBY MAIL POSTMARKED: FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supeil�visors T0: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. n �j JOHN CUL leek efQ Dated:�� nh� R L/moi `JII By: Deput (atj?i 11. FROM.: County Counsel 'TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially', with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's might to apply for.leave to present a late claim (Section 91. 1.3). ( ) Other: '1 I Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel Ill.. FROM: Clerk of the Board T0: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimelyl,with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). III IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: 'I I certify that this is a true and coii•ect copy of the Board' er entered in its minutes for this date. I • I Dated: © JOHN CULL'EN, CLERK, By Deputy Clerk WARNING Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6) months from thelate this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.See Government Code Section 915.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. *Fol;Additional Warning See Reverse Side ofThis Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that, 1. am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant i wn above. Dated: JOHN CU LLEN, CLERK By uty Clerk I 'I I AMENDED CLAIM. HOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTIOM— 4—C:6- CCP Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the .Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to California Government Cod 1AIN4: IIIm you is your notice of the action taken �UUJJ on your claim by the Board of MAR 10 2008 Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), COUNTY COUNSEL given Pursuant to Government Code AMOUNTs• MARTINEZCALIF. Section 91,3 and 91.5.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: F-Rrffll* YV1� 11,1.11 C ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: ADDRESS: ���"Oby CCU- BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: _!Vl0 _ BY N1AIL POS7'MA-RKED: FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. '�, JOHN CULL N, Clerk t Dated:�r l 1 -t C) C By: Deputy 6" 11. PROM: County Counsel ;TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) '.Phis claim complies substantially', with Sections 910 and 9]0.2. ( v)/Tlris Claim FAILS to comply 'substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The .Board cannoi act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that. it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: 3r�3-�t� By: 4weputy County Counsel 11.1. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (l) County Administrator (2) O Claim was returfied as untimely'mith notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV, .BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: Lj JOHN CULLEN, CLERK, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 9.13) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6)months li-om tit date this notice was personally sewed or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.See Government Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. if you want to consult an attorney,you should do so unmediately. *Tor,Additional Wal7ring See Reverse Side of This Notice. A FFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 declare under penalty of pei jury that�I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United Slates, over• age l8; and that today 1. deposited in the United Slates Postal Service in 1\L•u tinez, California, postale fully prep a certifier.) copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the chainia. as sl uwn above. Dated: _� d�_. LOAN CUL',L.EN, C.L.F_IZK 3y Deputy Clerk 1 I I OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL SE. SILVANO B. MARCHESI ti.--_ _ O COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA I �- .... 'E,:==_'_..� COUNTY COUNSEL Administration Building :___- j FP :=�'�•4 �', =• 651 Pine Street, 91h Floor � �-� ------•,a SHARON L. ANDERSON CHIEF ASSISTANT Martinez, California 94553-1229 (925)335-1800 A� i' ."'r ;� GREGORY C. HARVEY (925)646-1078(fax) a,���,�':' `�.:. ' VALERIE J. RANCHE �• -- :�� ASSISTANTS I sra co5�'� I I NOTiICE OF INSUFFICIENCY I AND/OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM II March 14, 2008 I I TO: FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP Post Office Box 268992 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-9992 1 RE: CLAIM OF: SHIN HYANG CHUNG I Please Take Notice as Follows: I The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: I [ ✓ ] 1. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. I [ ✓ ] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. 1 I [ ✓] 3. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. [ ✓] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. I [ ] 5. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. I I I I 1 I I 6. What damage or injuries do your: claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries of damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage.) 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) S. Names and addresses of witnesses,doctors,and hospitals: 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE TIME AMOUNT ■■aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'aaaaaaa as as ata a mama rasa as a■■oars Nam aaa a ora aaa raI ) Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides"The claim shall be )signed by the claimant or by some person on his behalf." SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) ) Name and address of Attorney ) ) (Claimant's Signature) (Address) Telephone No. )Telephone No. ■aman was aaaraaaaasaaaaaaaaaNam aaaaaaara'raaaaaaasataraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaraaaaaaaaa*Kamm aai PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that this claim form,or any claim filed with the County under the Tort Claims Act, is subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code, §§ 6500 et seq.) Furthermore, any attachments,addendums,or supplements attached to the claim form,including medical records,are also subject to public disclosure. ■■aaaaaaa0aaaaaaaa0aaaaa0aaaaaaa0aaaa3aaaaaaIa0aaaaaaaaa0aaaaaaaaaaa11aaaaaaa0aaaaaaa1 NOTICE: Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: Every person who,with intent to defraud,presents for',allowance or for payment to any state board or officer,or to any county, city, or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the County jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000),or by both such imprisonment and fine. I I ANI END.EU CLAINI 3� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY i BOARD ACTION: I Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the .Board of Supervisors, .Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. ) you is your notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code ANIOUN T: r. Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: J+r.,�4,1I le1`�J 1 S1tiA 14= ' fes C�tiu r� ATTORNEY: J DATE RECEIVED: I ADDRESS. �'���� �G rCf Z BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: ►'l�Gi.� (;'ijkl LCtii1 CCty, k BY MAIL POSTMARKED: FRONL Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claire. JOHN CUL N, Clerk Dated- VUL11611 (C'� By: Deputy IL FROM. County Counsel T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim PAILS to comply substantially with Sections 91.0 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). I O Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning.of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). I ( ) Other: I Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel I .11.1. FROM.: Clerk of the Board '1-0: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) O Claim.was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). i 1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous Vote of the Supervisors present: ( ) ".Chris Claim is rejected in lull. O Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the .Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. I Dated: JOHN CUL,.LEN, CLERK, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to cerlain exceptions,you have only six(G)months from the date this notice was personally sewed or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.See Govei–mnent.Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter: If you want to consult air attorney,you should do so inurretliately. *For Additioual Warning See Reverse Side of lois Notice. AFFIDAVIT' OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today i deposited in the United Statcs Postal Sel-vice ill 11lartinrez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order ajid Nolice to Claimant, addressed to the claima.►rt as shown above. Dated: _ ,I[)1-I..N CUI_,LF_;N, CLE1.1K 13y — De.1)ut}' Clerk I I I I • i FARM E RS R0. Box'268992 01kinhonin ()K 73126 Fax 877-217-1 389 ()3/04/2(X)8 R n r Self Insured aj Attn: Penny Bailey 651 Pine St, Room 106 MAR 1 0 Z008 Martinez, CA 94553 KCLEP11<80�ARff)(j,.:-ASj'j-3--V1S0RS _C) 2 CONTRA�OS ' c"' C� COST.' CID. o Re: Our Insured: Shin Hyan-Chung C, Our Claire#: 099 MD 10 11217212-1-1 F- 2 Date of Loss: 11/30/2007 Your Insured: Contra C'oka County > 2 Your Claim#: 64066 Amount Owed: $225.00 o Dear Penny Bailey: Be advised that due to thi,,accident, we have made supplemental payments for rental in the amount of 4+225.00. This additional Clain) payment has increased the total amount owed to $225.(x). W. Our support for the additional amount is attached. Sincerely, klid-Century Insurance Company Jennifer Millcr Auto SubroCration Representative 909-801-3341 VJkWB5T4 Selld all correspondence tu: Farmers Natj()lljL1 Document Cellrel F A R M ERS P.O. Box 268993 Ok-lithoma City,OK 731 26-899 1 Fax:(877)_217-1 189 March 5, 2008 Email: Payment Log Claim Number: 1011217212 Date of Loss: 11/30/2007 Insured's Name: SHIN HYANG CHUNG o Benefit Type Check Service Service To Payee Date Issued Benefit Number From Date Date Paid CHOICE AUTOBODYI 6106049801 QUALITY BODY 12/11/20070.00 &FENDER 0 11 6106049806 CHOICE 12/11/2007 $1,350.20 -0 AUTOBODYI 6106050078 SHIN HYANG 12/20/2007 $225.00 CHUNG ........... Benefit Type $1,575.20 Total i I Send all con'r:tipundcnrc to: F A R M E RI J Farmers National Document Center - � P.O.Box 268993 Oklahoma City,OK 7 3 126-899 3 Fax:(877)2 17-1389 March 5, 2008 Gmail:cL.imscl.x'uments ci(,rmcrsinsur,uirc.rum I I Loss of Use Endorsement E 1167 4th Edition: Option Applies when the loss exceeds the deductible amount applicable under PART IV of your. E-Z Reader Car Policy. ,n I K-1 $10 per day while your insured car is in the custody of a garage of repairs �.--- resulting from a collision. The maximum payable is $100.00. If your insured car is a total loss(regardless of salvage value) we will pay you $100.00. o I 0 K-2 $15 per day for a maximum payable of$300.00. I K-3 If coverage K-1, K-2, or K-4 loss occurs more than 50 miles from your residence we will pay for the reasonableandnecessary extra expense for commercial a transportation, gasoline, lodging and meals incurred to return your insured car, after it is repaired to your residence. The maximum payable for your return expenses is $200.00. I K-4 $25 per day for a maximum payable of$500.00 I K-5 $50 per day for a maximum payable of$ 1,000 I The insurance afforded by this endorsement does not apply to any collision or comprehensive loss occurring before the effective date of endorsement as shown in the I Declaration. i This endorsement is also subject to the following provisions: 1. Coverage applies only to your insured car other than a private passenger car, Utlllty car, or utility trailer not owned by you or family willie b ing tcinporarliy Used as a substitute vehicle: - If you are paid under this endorsement, we shall have your rights to seek recovery. 3. The premium charged for this insurance is fully earned unless the entire policy is cancelled. I This endorsement is part of your policy. It supersedes and controls anything to the contrary. It is otherwise subject to all other terms of the policy. I I I i I i Ndti 011dd D.CL1111 nt Center FARMERS al3>. 26 )) �s ,.� ,k Oklahoma City,OK 71126-81.)!)( clit imsdui umen ts('ndarnu•rxutsuruuc.cunl Fax Number: (877)217-1389 March 5, 008 005389 11 11111 1111111111 111181111111111 Ilk 1111111 Self Insured 651 Pine St, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Q, m 0 0 d • o a in 0 m O U 0 v m 3 m m co 0 0 0 v 0 I - _ I I I I I nl u I s � a I � N w � oG � LL, s I I I I I -AMENDEi) CLAEW BOARD Or SUPERVISORS O.F CONTRA COSTA COUN'TY BOARD ACTION: I Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, .Routing Endorsements, ) NOT'ICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references arelto ) The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. you is _your notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of MAR 1 102008 Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), COUNTY COUNSEL given Pursuant to Government Code MARTINEZ CALIF. Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all AMOUNT. L�,Icab- a)n "Warnings". CLAIMANT:f'`Q4�►tif� �11a --�d '1$D1� , i ATTORNn EY:+'`wi N DATE RECEIVEDb8 mss, �••�Y' � - ADDRESS: j BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: V� CA 13Y MAIL POSTMARKED: r FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claiiii. ,,� (( JOHN CUL N, Clerk + � . Dated: Ii`W � �® � By: Deputy I+� u� L ll. FROM: County Counsel T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS. to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot actlfoi- 15 days (Section 910.8). wH 104-be (t C l ai ni+s-Nat timely filed "f'„ '= - �J , - flied ,tie-mTur lira rla�.,, !,n c•rnnnrl rh*t it w s Nit's -i-a-a pjAy�fear lGaue to4zresent a late claim (S ction 91 1 3). (✓r Other: oc�I rlofb�c � /P5erc ;- ow /a- �-frnPG� S 1-o //4 I . CDated: I By:k_, / Deputy County Counsel Ill.. FROM.: Clerk of the Board TO:' County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) O Claim was returned as untimely witli notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: O`T JOHN CUL.LEN, CLEKK, By eputy Clerk rk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Sut�ject to cerlain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the date.this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claire.See Govenmment Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult ml attorney,you should do so immediately. *.For Additional Wareing See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF N1AI.LING I declare under penalty of pei jury !hit .l am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, Over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States l'ostal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this 13oarrl Order incl Notice to Claimant, �addressed to the claim. 16 as own ab )ve. I Dated: _ D _... .. JUI-1N CULL.CN, Ci_F1. .K f_3y _Dep y Clerk I OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL S�- L SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL Administration Building �•�-_'= •.. Fes,=_.'��4 651 Pine Street, 91h Floor ' %p �,•,e SHARON L. ANDERSON Martinez, California 94553-1229 CHIEF ASSISTANT (925)335-1800 A� _ - —°'� GREGORY C. HARVEY (925) 646-1078(fax) L = ` .~ VALERIE J. RANCHE ASSISTANTS coos�_, `� =• '<3' rA coir STATUTORY WARNING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 911.3 March 14, 2008 TO: Richard Alexander, Esq. Alexander Hawes, LLP 152 N. Third Street, #600 San Jose, CA 95112 RE: Amended Claim of Mark Johnson, Mamie Johnson, Jordan Johnson, William Johnson, Julia Johnson, Rachel Johnson, Michael Johnson Please Take Notice as Follows: The amended claim you presented to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors by mail on March 6, 2008, was reviewed by County Counsel. The portion of the claim prior to August 22, 2007 was not presented within six months after the event or occurrence as required by law. Because you allege late discovery of the claim, the claim is "timely on its face" and will be reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Supervisors within the statutory time period. To preserve the rights of the County, its departments and employees to challenge the validity of your late discovery claim, you are warned pursuant to statute that if your delayed discovery argument is improper, your claim is late, and is being returned because it was not presented within six months after the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Gov. Code, §§ 901, 91.1.2.) Because the claim may not have been presented within the time allowed by law, we warn you that to preserve your right in the event your claim is determined to be late, your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for leave to present a late claim. (See Gov. Code, §§ 911.4 to 912.2, inclusive, and 946.6.) Under some circumstanccs, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Gov. Code, § 911.6.) Page 1 SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL By: Monika L. Cooper Deputy County Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1012, 1013a, 2015.5; Evid. Code, §§ 641, 664) I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Office of the County Counsel, 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553-1229. On March 14, 2008, 1 served a true copy of this Statutory Warning Pursuant to Government Code Section 911.3 by placing the document in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Martinez, California addressed to Richard Alexander, Esq., Alexander Hawes, LLP, 152 N. Third Street, #600, San Jose, CA 95112, as set forth above. I am readily familiar with Office of County Counsel's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 1 V008, at Martinez, California. aula Webb cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management Page 2 AMENDED CLAIM CPO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the .Board of Supervisors, Routing .Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. ) you is your notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given.Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all A.MOUNI': (,l AICA-t:%00 "Warnings". { �o Ileo-) C L AI1Vl AN'.I': 1`�,C�,IYl�,1�4': 'y>`p,Y'�; " nn A"I'1.ORNEY �_AAQ) d At Ley"CaVQt" DATE RECEIVED: ADDRESS: ' BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: 6 2. .t BY MAIL POSTMARKED: FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ` JOHN CUL. N���C.,,,lerk + Dated: 'k�1 �f) y By: DeputAy trC1U.6cf' f,tC, UL 11. .FROM.: County ounsel T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substautially.with-Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with. Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The .Board camiot act Tor 15 clays (Section 910.8). O Claim is not timely tiled. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to' ,apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM.: Clerk of the Board 'TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( j Claire was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 91 .1.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: .By unanimous vole of the Supervisors present: Chis Claim is rejected in full. ( Otlier: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Bo d's Order entered in its minutes for this (late. Dated: JOHN CU.LLEN, CLERK, B Deputy Clerk WAIU,QN (Gov. code section 913) Subject to cedant exceptions,you have only six(6)mouths frot t the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to rile a court action on this claim.See Government Code Soctioii 945.6.You may seelt the advice of an attorney of your.choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. *For Additioind Wainutg See Reverse Side of This Notice AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I deelare tuider penalty of pet jury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and .that todly I deposited in the Ullited States Postal Service. ill I\-.tar•tine7, Califcirnia, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order ,Intl Notice to Claimant', addressed to the claintlnt shown above. Uatecl:� _ .� _. JOHN t'Ut_..LFN, C.L! l.LK l.3y _ _ ` _ Uet)uly Clerk I I REO'E� D Richard Alexander Alexander Hawes, LLP MAR 1 0 2008 152 North Third Street San Jose,CA 95112 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. 408.289.1776 Attorneys for Claimants SECOND AMENDED CLAIM FOR ADOPTION FRAUD I TO: Clerk,Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Building,Room 106 651 Pine Street I Martinez,CA 94553', I On or about September 25, 2007 Claimants first discovered that in the adoption of Samuel Jordan Johnson I."Jordan"I Contra Costa County lied by concealing from Mamie and Mark Johnson "all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life" including information of abuse, neglect,deprivation,physical trauma and failure to bond which the law mandated must be provided to Mamie and Mark Johnson as adopting parents at the time of placement in 2001 and before Jordan's adoption in 2002. I Contra Costa County, has • inflicted on the Johnson family a severely mentally ill child who has caused physical and emotional harm to their four adopted children and made the life of their family unbearable as the mental illness has become progressively worse • greatly damaged Jordan by concealing information which if disclosed would have led to early psychiatric intervention and care • defrauded Mr. and l Mrs.Johnson by causing them to accept an abused child they specifically did not want to adopt and whom they would have rejected • saddled Mr. and Mrs.Johnson with the cost of residential care for a seven year old with severe mental illness at approximately $15,000 a month,grossly in excess of Mr. Johnson's income as a fire captain in the San Francisco Fire Department i • concealed from the Johnson's that they only had 5 years to set aside the adoption of Jordan as a result of the County concealing "all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life"and/or concealing Jordan's mental illness; as a result the deadline passed • treated with contempt two loving and caring parents who readily have accepted and adopted children addicted in utero to drugs and who have served as public . advocates for Contra Costa County's efforts to woo the public into adopting hundreds of drug babies born each year in Contra Costa County who are not adopted because of drug histories I I i I i I I Pursuant to Government Code Section 910,claimants, by and through their attorneys Alexander Hawes, LLP,present this Second Amended Claim for adoption fraud and personal injuries. The original claim was mailed February 22,2008 and receipt was acknowledged. Name and Postal Address of Claimants. Mamie and Mark Johnson,individually and as the parents of the individual minors: Samuel Jordan Johnson,age 7,William Johnson,age 10,Julia Johnson,age 10, Rachel Johnson,age 8 and Michael Johnson,age 4. All reside at 2473 Encinal Drive, Walnut Creek,CA 94597 Postal address to which notices are to be sent. Richard Alexander Alexander Hawes, LLP 152 North Third Street San Jose,CAI 95112 408.289.1776 1 Date and Circumstances of Occurrence. Mamie anId Mark Johnson are well known by Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services I In the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area,and particularly in Contra Costa County,there are great numbers of children available for an adoption that will never come because their birth mothers were addicts and the children were born addicted to drugs. There are few fosterlparents and adopting parents willing to accept children with these disabilities. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have been the exception. I Each of their five adopted children was born by a mother who was a drug addict. They have cared for five such children,nursed them through withdrawal,adopted them and made a family for them Because of their willingness to adopt drug babies,Mr. and Mrs.Johnson were recruited by Contra Costa County to serve as public advocates for the adoption of drug babies. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson are well known to Contra Costa County's Department of Social Services and to Children and Family Services as outstanding public advocates for the adoption of drug exposed children to tell the public that a child born addicted can live a normal life with early intervention and to woo the public into adopting hundreds of drug babies who are not adopted because of their drug histories. I _ I I Because of their sincere dedication and commitment to the plight of children born to drug addicts wanting and needing loving homes,Contra Costa County has invited Mr. and Mrs.Johnson to share their experiences and their advocacy at numerous adoption pride classes and heritage classes. In addition Contra Costa County's Children and Family Services Adoption Unit hired Mrs.Johnson to recruit foster families and adopting parents for drug exposed children. Mamie Johnson lborn April 25, 19571 and Mark Johnson lborn July 25, 1959] were married in San Francisco January 9, 1993. He serves as a fire captain in the San Francisco Fire Department. (There are no natural children of this marriage. The couple has adopted five minor children who,in addition to Mr. and Mrs.Johnson,are claimants: Jordan, William,Julia, Rachel and Michael. I William Johnson,a minor,age 10 [born February 13, 19981 was the first child adopted by the Johnsons. He was adopted through the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services by order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Julia Johnson,a minor,age 10 [born June 19, 19981, was the second child adopted by the Johnsons. She was adopted through the City and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services by order of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. I Rachel Johnson,a minor,age 8 [born October 16, 19991,the natural sister of Julia was the third child adopted by the Johnsons. She was adopted through the City and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services by order of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. i Jordan Johnson,a minor,age 7 [August 29,2000] was the fourth child adopted by the Johnsons. He was adopted in 2002 through the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services by order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Michael Johnson,a minor,age 4 [born May 27,2003],is the natural brother of Julia do Rachel and the fifth child adopted by the Johnsons. He was adopted through the City and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services by order of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. I Disclosures Required by California Law At all time since January 1, 1996,California Family Law Section.8817 mandates, in pertinent part,that in all adoptions,the adopting parents shall be provided with a (a) A written report on the child's medical background,and if available,the medical background of the child's biological parents, I I I I i I I so far as ascertainable,shall be made by the department or delegated county adoption agency as part of the study required by Section 8806.. I (b) The report onithe child's background shall contain all known diagnostic information,including current medical reports on the child, psychological evaluations and scholastic information,as well as all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life. I The full disclosure report is required to be delivered to adopting parents before an adoption. Receipt of the rept rt is required to be acknowledged in writing by the adopting parents. I Reliance on County Disclosures In Previous Adoptions In each of the three adoptions by the Johnsons before the placement and adoption of Jordan [the adoptions of William,Julia and Rachel], Mr. and Mrs.Johnson received full disclosure from county adoption authorities and relied on those disclosures in making their adoption decisions. The adoption of William,the Johnson's first adopted child,through Contra Costa County made clear to Contra Costa County adoption officials that a child who had been sexually or physically abused was unacceptable and would not be accepted. I Claimants' son William,born 2.13.98,was placed with Mr. and Mrs.Johnson at age 6 months by Contra Costa County. I The disclosures required by law were made to the adopting parents including the backgrounds of the birth mother and birth father,and the care William received in foster care from Ms. Cathy Behrendt before he was placed with the Johnsons. All medical records of drug addiction of William and his withdrawal from addiction were provided to Mr. and Mrs.Johnson. In the adoption process the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Families Services disclosedlin writing that William's birth mother was a drug addict, living in a residential drug treatment facility,and was "suffering from mental health problems given that she hast had at least three psychiatric hospitalizations related to a drug overdose." I In addition Contra Costa County reported that William was born "addicted"with features of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome,and had been diagnosed with microcephaly. At that time Contra Costa County further disclosed: "(M)ost children with FAS have mild or borderline mental retardation. Most also have behavioral problems such as poor judgment,distractibility and difficulty recognizing social cues which can make it I I I I I difficult for them to live independently as adults. * * * "he will likely suffer from permanent developmental delays . . . " See underlined portions of attached Exhibit 1. The Johnsons relied upon this disclosure and,even though William came from a drug addicted mother,William was accepted,adopted and is a member of their family today. I In adopting two children of drug mothers through Contra Costa County and three children of a drug mother through the City and County of San Francisco,Mr.and Mrs. Johnson have refused to consider or accept for adoption children who were sexually, physically,or.otherwise abused. I Contra Costa County, learned that in 1998. Because William had a ten-year-old sister,Contra Costa County urged Mr. and Mrs.Johnson to also adopt this young girl. It is a common policy in adoptions to keep siblings together. 1 The disclosure report for William's sister revealed that the birth mother"has a long-time history of alcohol;cocaine and amphetamine abuse for which she had not sought treatment during the Family Reunification period with her 10 year-old daughter [actual name known but redacted in this claim1,placed in July, 1997,and subsequently,Willie,placed in February, 1998. Ms.[actual name known but redacted in this claim] 19-year-old daughter [actual name known but redacted in this claims stated to the Family Reunification social worker on September 11, 1998 that she had been in foster care her entire life." See underlined portions of attached Exhibit 2. 1 In addition the report noted that when the girl "was five years of age her mother's brother got on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina; he kissed her on the mouth and touched her body all over. * * *There were other incidents with cousins in Oakland that were reported as well." I The Johnsons Refused a Child with a Background of Abuse After this disclosurel by Contra Costa County,Mamie and Mark Johnson proceeded with the adoption of William,but rejected the offer to adopt William's sister. William's sister wast not acceptable because she had been victimized by physical, sexual and other abuse. Mr.and Mrs.Johnson were concerned with protecting William from abuse by his sister and they did not want to take on the expected ramifications of dealing with an abused child in their home. It is for these reasons that the Johnsons did not adopt William's sister. I In adoption of their daughters Julia and Rachel from the City and County of San Francisco,the Johnsons recl ived,as they had for William,full disclosures of family I I I I I background. There was no reported physical abuse of these youngsters. Both Julia and Rachel were adopted,after full disclosure that the birth mother was a drug addict. In every one of their adoptions,knowing that the birth mother was an addict did not bar the adoptions. What did bar an adoption was a history of physical,sexual or other abuse. The Adoption of Jordan Against this history, in July 2001,Jordan,age 11 months and a ward of the Contra Costa County Superior Court,was placed for emergency services by the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services with Mamie and Mark Johnson at their home in Walnut Creek,CA. Jordan was the fourth child to come into the Johnson's home. Claimants understood Jordan had previously been in foster care in Richmond,CA. Based on their experience with both Contra Costa County and the City and County of San Francisco, Mr. and Mrs.Johnson expected that Contra Costa County would fully disclose to them Jordan's family background,especially since they had made it clear to adoption authorities that;while they were willing to take children that others rejected,i.e.the children of addicted mothers who were in fact addicted in utero,they would refuse an abused child,as they had rejected William's sister. As part of the Adoptive Placement Agreement of May 15,2002 between Mamie and Mark Johnson and Contra Costa County Adoptions, Mr.and Mrs.Johnson were provided with purported disclosure documents by Contra Costa County Department of Health and Human Services social worker Reynalda Ganding. These documents disclose that in February 2000,before Jordan's birth,the birth mother was reported to have physically abused two of her children. In addition,the birth mother was reported as being homeless, having outstanding warrants for drugs, prostitution and stealing,plus two prostitution convictions in 1988 and 1997. The disclosure also reports the birth mother was involved in domestic violence,but is silent whether she was a victim or a perpetrator. The reports of abusing older children and domestic violence were not a concern because Jordan was taken from his mother immediately following his birth: "Jordan was placed on police hold when the birth mother and Jordan tested positive for drugs upon the baby's birth." The report reiterated that Jordan"tested positive for cocaine at birth and hence,was placed in police custody." In reliance that Contra Costa County was telling them the truth, was in full compliance with the mandates of the California Family Law Code,and had made full disclosures to the Johnsons in the adoption of William,Mr.and Mrs.Johnson believed that the County had made a full and complete disclosure of Jordan's background as required by law. Mamie and Mark Johnson trusted the County to obey the law and tell them truth of what it knew about Jordan's family background. As a result,the Johnson relied on the County's disclosures and opened their family,their home and their hearts to Jordan with his formal adoption on June 18,2002. Jordan's Behaviors Reported to Contra Costa County Social Workers Within the five year anniversary of the June 18,2002 adoption,the Johnsons asked county social workers LaJeune•Lee and Lois Rutten of Children and Family Services for financial assistance to provide appropriate care for Jordan. The Johnsons had reported to county social workers that Jordan had become increasingly and progressively difficult,and that his behaviors,at first challenging,had slowly progressed to being bizarre. ::While they had worked and hoped that their love and support would bring about improvement,that was not happening. Slowly Jordan was becoming worse. Jordan was unlike any of their other children. The Johnsons explained to these social workers how Jordan: • sets fires in the garage and in the family home. • steals from family members • steals money from teachers at school • sexually abused a classmate and a child of a family friend• • attempted sexuallyabuse an older and a younger sibling • killed the fish in the family aquarium • attempted to smother the family cat • attempted to smother the family bird • hoards food • gorges on food and then vomits at the dinner table • urinates into bowl's and water glasses and places them on shelves as traps • urinates onto mattresses • urinates on the floors and walls of the home • smears feces on the walls in the bathroom • removes his clothes at school and other public places • destroys clothingand shoes • destroys furniture • hides soiled clothes in the house and backyard • takes soiled underwear to school in his backpack • commits repeated acts of violence and aggression against other children • physically and emotionally abuses siblings • constantly is disruptive in the class room • can no longer attend after school day care or homework groups • sets off fire alarms at school • takes off his seatbelt while the car is moving • releases the seatbelt of siblings • continually puts objects in the toilets to cause backups • climbs out of windows at night • requires constant parental monitoring LaJeune Lee and Lois Rutten advised Mr. and Mrs.Johnson that because Jordan had not been diagnosed with a mental illness such a diagnosis was necessary before Contra Costa County could provide any aid. Social Workers Never,'Disclosed only Five Years to Rescind an Adoption of a Mentally Ill Child At no time did these county social workers tell Mr.and Mrs.Johnson a little known secret of adoption law that was well known to them and which was of major importance to a family with a child who may be mentally ill. Under California Family Code § 9100 a petition to set aside an adoption [adoptionese for giving back a child;with mental problems must "be filed within five years after the entry of the order of adoption." County adoption officials knew that the time for Mr.and Mrs. Johnson to file a lawsuit to give back Jordan would expire June 18,2007,the fifth anniversary of the court order approving the adoption, but they never said a word,even to two people who had worked so hard to promote the adoption of drug babies in Contra Costa County and to spread the message that could take many children off the County's dependency rolls. Following the instructions of social workers LaJeune Lee and Lois Rutten,Mr. and Mrs.Johnson retained a child psychologist,James Wakeman, Ph.D.of the Psychological Services Center of the California School of Professional Psychlogy in Oakland to interview,examine and test Jordan. September 25,2007 Jordan Diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder On or about September 25',2007 Dr. Wakeman rendered his opinion. Jordan was diagnosed for the first time: reactive attachment disorder(disinhibited type),enuresis and child or adolescent antisocial behavior. At that time Mark and Mamie Johnson were advised by Dr.James Wakeman,that Jordan's behavioral history in their home was due to abuse, neglect,deprivation,physical trauma and failure to bond,among other destructive factors, which occurred at the hands of early caretakers before Jordan:was adopted by Mark and Mamie Johnson. The news devastated Mamie and Mark Johnson. Had they known this they never would have adopted Jordan,put;their three older children at risk and never would have brought young Michael into their home after the adoption of Jordan. How could this have happened? Why weren't they told. In hindsight,the County had to have known something about Jordan's life from the time he was taken from his mother at birth,placed with relatives in Richmond,and then brought to them as an emergency placement in July 2001. i i i i i Contra Costa County Social Workers Continuing Refusal to Produce Jordan's Records Before Placement with the Johnsons in July 2001 In an attempt to understand the full nature and extent of what Jordan suffered before his adoption, Dr. Wakeman asked the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services to provide any and all information concerning Jordan's pre-adoption life,namely all critical information envisioned by Family Law Section 8817,namely all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life from the time of birth,through placement with a relative his first eleven months until placed with the Johnsons on an emergency basis in July 2001. In reviewing the original disclosures made by Reynalda Ganding at the time of Jordan's adoption,the report fails to'provide any substantive or detailed information concerning Jordan's development and family life for his first eleven months,yet in hindsight the County had to have had information because Jordan was under its supervision and control and in addition it made the decision to transfer Jordan to the Johnsons on an emergency basis in July 2001. Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services refused to provide any relevant information concerning the birth mother or family members who cared for Jordan before he was delivered to the Johnsons on an emergency basis in July 2001. The County now maintains it has no knowledge of what,if any,emergency required the placement of Jordan with the Johnsons. At no time after placement or before,or after,the final adoption order of June 18, 2002 has Contra Costa County make a full and complete disclosure of Jordan's background as required by law and;that misconduct continues to present. Based on Jordan's history and behavior,claimants are informed and believe that before Jordan was placed with the Johnson family he was caused to suffer and endure severe abuse,neglect,failure to bond,physical trauma and other destructive factors,and that such facts are known by the Department of Children and Family Services as a result of its supervision of Jordan from his birth until emergency placement with the Johnsons at age eleven months. Claimants are informed and believe that Contra Costa County concealed critical, relevant and important facts concerning the background of Jordan in violation of Section 8817. Claimants are informed and believe that as a result of abuse, neglect,failure to bond,physical trauma and other destructive factors,Jordan has been caused to suffer severe reactive attachment disorder and other further,serious,severe and as of yet not clearly identified,mental disorders. Had Contra Costa Countyfully disclosed to Mr.and Mrs.Johnson all known facts of the abuse,neglect failure to bond, physical trauma and other destructive factors Mr. i _ II and Mrs.Johnson are informed and believe that they would not have adopted Jordan and would not have inflicted Jordan on their family,especially their then three,and now four, adopted chldren. Involved County Employees Claimants are informed and believe that at all times Reynalda Ganding had access to all records concerning Jordan's placement following his birth until placed with Mr. and Mrs.Johnson on an emergency basis in July 2001 and concealed from Mr.and Mrs. Johnson "all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life" required to be provided to adopting parents by Family Law § 8817. Claimants are informed and believe that at all times LaJeune Lee and Lois Rutten have had access to all records concerning Jordan's placement following his birth until placed with Mr.and Mrs.Johnson on an emergency basis in July 2001 and continue to conceal from Mr.and Mrs.Johnson"all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life"required to be provided to adopting parents by Family Law § 8817. Damage Suffered. Jordan is severely disturbed:and his behaviors are not only bizarre and destructive but are placing the Johnsons and their children at grave physical risk of severe injury and death. Jordan is a danger to himself and to others. His four adopted siblings are the most likely candidates for serious harm. Ms. Patricia Malo,of Contra Costa County Child Protective Services,advised Mr. and Mrs.Johnson to lock Jordan in his room at night. Ms. LaJeune Lee,a county social worker supervising the adoptions assistance program in Contra Costa County, recommended that Jordan be confined at night in order to protect the Johnson's four other children. It is for these reasons that Jordan must and should be removed from the Johnson home immediately. As a direct, proximate and:legal cause of its omissions and acts of concealment, Contra Costa County has caused Mr. and Mrs.Johnson to suffer severe mental and emotional distress and grief in adopting a child who has been abused,which they otherwise would have refused to adopt,as they had refused to adopt William's sister years earlier. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have suffered the total and complete disruption of their personal home,family and family life;the acts and omissions of Contra Costa County have impacted claimants' relationships with each other and their minor children, William, Julia, Rachel and Michael, by reason of the emotional distress and abuse inflicted on each them by Jordan. i i i i In addition, Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have had imposed on them the financial cost of providing medical,psychiatric and additional care and support for each of their minor children. As a further direct,proximate and legal cause of the County's concealment of information required by law to be provided to Mr. and Mrs.Johnson,William,Julia, Rachel and Michael have been caused, to suffer severe emotional distress and physical injuries. As a further direct,proximate!and legal cause of the County's concealment of information required to be disclosed in the adoption of Jordan,the County has prevented Mr. and Mrs.Johnson from knowing all the facts necessary to either not accept Jordan or to secure appropriate care for Jordan,.'to his detriment. Under no circumstances should a child with Jordan's profound psychological disabilities and needs have been placed with adopting parents from whom it was concealed that Jordan's developmental history indicated he needed major psychiatric medical treatment. The concealment of necessary . family background and psychological information from Mr. and Mrs.Johnson has denied, precluded and prevented Jordan from obtaining appropriate psychiatric placement and therapy causing Jordan's condition to further deteriorate. The County's concealment in this case has caused further damage to Jordan by denying him access to timely care and has caused Jordan additional and permanent damage. As a direct,proximate and legal result of the concealment by the County of Contra Costa of the true and complete extent of Jordan's family's medical background psychological evaluations, developmental history and history of abuser Jordan has been denied aggressive psychiatric intervention necessary for appropriate diagnosis,care and treatment. On information and belief,Jordan's condition,having been untreated for this period of time,will become permanent unless Jordan immediately begins to receive 24/7 supervision and care in a licensed residential treatment facility dedicated to providing services for sevenyear olds suffering from reactive attachment disorder such as suffered by Jordan. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have been quoted charges of$15,000 a month for such care and claimants demand that Contra Costa County immediately provide 24/7 residential care to treat Jordan's severe reactive attachment disorder. Contra Costa County social workers have advised that the County will only pay on the order of$5,000 to $6,000 a month for board and care. In addition to the damages inflicted on Jordan,the Johnson's children, William, Julia, Rachel and Michael all have,'suffered physical abuse and emotional distress inflicted on them by Jordan,all as a direct, proximate and legal cause of the concealment of Jordan's family background and,developmental history from Mr.and Mrs.Johnson. In addition Mamie and Mark Johnson have suffered the financial expense of providing long-term residential care for Jordan,therapy for their family and counseling for William,Julia,Rachel and Michael. i For all these reasons claimants demand I • a full and complete disclosure of all information regarding Jordan's developmental history and family life from birth until placement with the Johnsons in July 2001 1 • 24/7 full residential psychiatric care for Jordan paid by the County for as long as required I • psychological counseling for each of the Johnson children and co-counseling for Mr.and Mrs.Johnson as the primary care providers for their children • fair, reasonable and appropriate compensation for the abuse and suffering inflicted on each of them as a result of the fraudulent concealment of the developmental history and family life of Jordan Amount of Claims. ! Because of the extensive damages suffered and the serious injuries inflicted on all seven individual claimants,the amount of all claims cannot be fully stated at this time. The actual amount of the general damages for pain and suffering suffered by claimants alone is well in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court and shall be determined by the jury at trial!. In addition,Jordan and his parents have suffered devastating economic damages, the need for future psychiatric care,treatment in a residential facility,lost wages for Jordan for life and the cost of permanent lifetime psychiatric hospitalization. It is expected that Jordan will require lifetime mental hospitalization and supervision at an average cost of$15,000 a month [present dollarsl for life,lifetime medications at a cost of$12,000 per year,and medical/advocate supervision at a cost of $10,000 a year for life. Absent lifetime care it is expected that Jordan as an adult will be convicted of crimes and incarcerated or will be hospitalized for mental illness. The total cost of life care for Jordan,without consideration for inflation for medical services, is approximately $16,000,000 in current dollars. In addition,Jordan will never be gainfully employed and has suffered a lifetime of lost earnings, reasonably estimated tol be in excess of$1,800,000 [the estimated present value of lifetime wages for a high schi of graduate]. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 7,2008 Alexander Hawes,LLP By 41� &046e-� Richard Alexander Attorneys for Clai ants i Willie Minor - Page 10 1 Willie was tested at Children's Hospital for hearing on September 17, 1998 and 2 3 he has diminished hearing capacity in his malformed left ear. He has been assigned'a 4 speech therapist who will visit the home twice a month to assess whether his language 5 development is being negatively affected by his hearing loss. He will have plastic 6 surgery on his left ear when he is five years of age, at which point his ear will have reached 90% of its full size. . 8 MINOR'S DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS: 9 10 Current Developmental Delays: 11 Willie's development is delayed because of his exposure to drugs and alcohol 12 in utero. Dr. Chen wrote in her evaluation of May 14, 1998 that with Fetal Alcohol 13 Syndrome " postnatal linear growth tends to remain retarded and the adipose tissue is 14 thin. These children look like they are failing to thrive. They tend to be irritable as 15 16 young infants, hyperactive as children, and more social as young adults. Most children with FAS have mild or borderline mental retardation. Most also have 17 18 behavioral problems such as poor judgment, distractibility, and difficulty recognizing 19 social cues which can make it difficult for them to live independently as adults. It is too 20 early to assess Willie for mental retardation. If there are concerns about Willie's 21 development or cognitive abilities in the future, he could be evaluated by a 22 23 developmental specialist." 24I The foster/adopt family was aware when Willie was placed with them that he 25 will likely suffer from permanent developmental delays, but are committed to helping 20 him realize his potential to its fullest. When he had difficulty moving due to his 2i stiffness, they would get on the floor with him to help him learn to move his legs, one 28 independent of the other Now, with the help of physical and occupational therapy Exhibit 1 Willie Minor - Page 12 1 environment, and describe him as a child with "perfect magnetism." He calls his 2 3 caretakers "mama" and "dada." I 4 Summary of Natural Parents' Medical History: i 5 Alleged Father: There is no information in the record about Mr. 6 medical history. 7 Mother: Ms. has a long-time history of alcohol, cocaine, and amphetamine abuse for which she had not sought treatment during the Family 9 10 Reunification period with her.1 0-year-old daughter, Monney, placed in July,. 1997, and 11 subsequently ,Willie., placed in February, 1998. Ms. 19-year-old daughter, 12 stated to the Family Reunification social worker on September 11, 13 1998 that she had been in foster care her entire life. I 14I I Ms. recently entered substance abuse treatment on November 10, lc I 1998 at the Sojourne Outpatient Counseling Center, and this treatment was verified 16 17 through January 7, 1999. This two- month period is the longest she has spent in 18 treatment since Willie was born drug-positive in February, 1998. 19 Summary of Natural Parents' Developmental History: 20 Alleged Father: There is no information in the record about Mr. Is 21 developmental history. 22 23 Mother: There is no information in the record about Ms. 211 developmental history. ��a� Summary of Parents' Education, Training, and Employment History: i 2G1 I Alleged Father: There is no information in the record about Mr. s I 97I I history other than he was on public assistance in August. 1998. p 9 ; I Mother: Ms. was approximately 15 years of age when she I Exhibit 2 • I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I,the undersigned, declare as follows: 3 1 ain now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or cause; I am employed in Santa Clara County, California, 4 and my business address is 152 North Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, Santa Clara County,California. 5 Oil—A I g I served the attached as indicated below: 6 SECOND AMENDED CLAIM FOR ADOPTION FRAUD 7 (by mail)on all parties in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §1013,by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a designated area for outgoing mail,addressed as set 8 forth below. At Alexander IIawes, LLP,mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of'postage and is deposited that same day in the ordinary course of business in a United States mailbox 9 in the City of San Jose, California. 10 — (by personal delivery)by causing said document to be personally delivered by courier to the person(s) at the address set forth below. 11 (by Federal Express)by depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed packet for overnight delivery, with charges thereon fully prepaid, in a Federal Express collection box in San Jose, California. 12 (by facsimile transmission)by transmitting said document(s) from our office facsimile machine 13 (408.287.1776)to facsimile machine number(s)shown below. Following transmission, I received a "Transmission Report" from our facsimile machine indicating that the transmission had been 14 transmitted without error. 15 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administration Building, Rm. 106 1.6 651 Pine Street 17 Martinez, CA 94553 18 Monika L. Cooper Deputy County Counsel 19 Office of the County Counsel—County of Contra Costa �O 651 Pine Street, 9`h Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws Qf the State of California that the foregoing is true and 22 correct and that this Declaration was executed on 7 0 _, at San Jose, California. 23 24 25 26 27 28 i Ale-mantle r Hawes, LLIP M a I o r I n j u r y T r i a l A t t o r n e y s I 152 NORTH THIRD STREET,SUITE 600 SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 951 12-771 1 ' TELEPHONE:408.289.17%'5 RECEIVED FACSIMILE:408.287.1776 www.alexanderinj'ury.com � MAR 1 0 2008 March 7, 2008 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 re: .lohnson v. County of Contra Costa Dear Clerk, Enclosed please find an original and one copy of a Second Amended Claim against the County of Contra Costa. Please file the original, stamp the copy "Date/Filed/Received" and return the conformed copy in the enclosed postage prepaid return envelope. I _ Cor lly. Richard Alexander RA:ca Enclosures } � I Y I Richard Alexander Alexander Hawes, LLP 152 North Third Street San Jose, CA 95112 408.289.1776 Attorneys for Claimants SECOND AMENDED CLAIM FOR ADOPTION FRAUD II TO: Clerk,Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Buillding, Room 106 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 On or about September 25, 2007 Claimants first discovered that in the adoption of Samuel Jordan Johnson Contra Costa County lied by concealing from Mamie and Mark Johnson "all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life" including information of abuse, neglect, deprivation, physical trauma and failure to bond which the law mandated must be provided to Mamie and Mark Johnson as adopting parents at the time of placement in 2001 and before Jordan's adoption in 2002. Contra Costa County has • inflicted on the Johnson fa 'roily a severely mentally ill child who has caused physical and emotional harm to their four adopted children and made the life of their family unbearable as the mental illness has become progressively worse. • greatly damaged Jordan by concealing information which if disclosed would have led to early psychiatric intervention and care • defrauded Mr. and Mrs.Johnson by causing them to accept an abused child they specifically did not want to adopt and whom they would have rejected • saddled Mr. and Mrs. Johnson with the cost of residential care for a seven year old with severe mental illness at approximately $15,000 a month, grossly in excess of Mr. Johnson's income as a fire captain in the San Francisco Fire Department • concealed from the Johnson's that they only had 5 years to set aside the adoption of Jordan as a result;Pf the County concealing "all known information regardinc, the child's developmental history and family life"and/or concealing Jordan's mental illness; as a result the deadline passed • treated with contempt two loving and caring parents who readily have accepted and adopted children addicted'lin utero to drugs and who have served as public advocates for Contra Costa Co'unty's efforts to woo the public into adopting hundreds of drug babies born each year in Contra Costa County who are not adopted because of drug histories I I I Pursuant to Government Code Section 910,claimants, by and through their attorneys Alexander Hawes, LLP, present this Second Amended Claim for adoption fraud and personal injuries. The original claim was mailed February 22,2008 and receipt was acknowledged. Name and Postal Address of Claimants. Mamie and Mark Johnson, individually and as the parents of the individual minors: Samuel Jordan Johnson, age 7, William Johnson,age 10,Julia Johnson, age 10, Rachel Johnson,age 8 and Michael Johnson, age 4. All reside at 2473 Encinal Drive, Walnut Creek,CA 94597 Postal address to which notices are to be sent. Richard Alexander' Alexander Hawes. LLP 152 North Third Street San Jose,CA 95112 408.289.1776 Date and Circumstances of Occurrence. Mamie and Mark Johnson are well known by Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services In the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area,and particularly in Contra Costa County,there are great numbers of children available for an adoption that will never come because their birth mothers were addicts and the children were born addicted to drugs. There are few foster parents and adopting parents willing to accept children with these disabilities. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have been the exception. Each of their five adopted children was born by a mother who was a drug addict. They have cared for five such children, nursed them through withdrawal,adopted them and made a family for them. Because of their willingness to',adopt drug babies,Mr. and Mrs.Johnson were recruited by Contra Costa County to serve as public advocates for the adoption of drug babies. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson are well known to Contra Costa County's Department of Social Services and to Children and Family Services as outstanding public advocates for the adoption of drug exposed children tq tell the public that a child born addicted can live a normal life with early intervention and to woo the public into adopting hundreds of drug babies who are not adopted because of their drug histories. I . I 'I Because of their sincere dedication and commitment to the plight of children born to drug addicts wanting and needing loving homes,Contra Costa County has invited Mr. and Mrs. Johnson to share their experiences and their advocacy at numerous adoption pride classes and heritage classes'. In addition Contra Costa County's Children and Family Services Adoption Unit hired Mrs.Johnson to recruit foster families and adopting parents for drug exposed children. . Mamie Johnson Iborn April 25, 19571 and Mark Johnson Iborn July 25, 1.9591 were married in San Francisco January 9, 1993. He serves as a fire captain in the San Francisco Fire Department. There,are no natural children of this marriage. The couple has adopted five minor children who,in addition to Mr. and Mrs.Johnson,are claimants: Jordan, William,Julia, Rachel and'Michael. William Johnson, a minor,age 10 Iborn February 13, 19981 was the first child adopted by the Johnsons. He was adopted through the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services by;,order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Julia Johnson,a minor,age 10 [born June 19, 19981,was the second child adopted by the Johnsons. She was adopted through the City and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services by order of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. Rachel Johnson, a minor,age,8 Iborn October Ib, 19991, the natural sister of Julia was the third child adopted by the Johnsons. She was adopted through the City and County of San Francisco Department,of Social Services by order of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. Jordan Johnson,a minor, age 7 (August 29,20001 was the fourth child adopted by the Johnsons. He was adopted in 2002 through the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services by order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Michael Johnson,a minor,agel'4 Iborn May 27,20031,is the natural brother of Julia do Rachel and the fifth child adopted by the Johnsons. He was adopted through the City and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services by order of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. Disclosures Required by California Law At all time since January 1, 1.996,California Family Law Section 8817 mandates, in pertinent part,that in all adoptions,the adopting parents shall be provided with a I, (a) A written report on the child's medical background,and if available, the medical background of the child's biological parents, i i i i it so far as ascertainable,shall be made by the department or delegated county adoption agency as part of the study required by Section 8806. (b) The report on the child's background shall contain all known diagnostic inform'ation, including current medical reports on the child, psychological evaluations and scholastic information,as well as all known',information regarding the child's developmental history and family life. The full disclosure repor6s required to be delivered to adopting parents before an adoption. Receipt of the report is required to be acknowledged in writing by the adopting parents. Reliance on County Disclosures In Previous Adoptions In each of the three adoptions by the Johnsons before the placement and adoption of Jordan [the adoptions of William,Julia and Rachel, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson received full disclosure from county adoption authorities and relied on those disclosures in making their adoption decisions. The adoption of William,the Johnson's first adopted child,through Contra Costa County made clear to Contra Costa County adoption officials that a child who had been sexually or physically abused was unacceptable and would not be accepted. Claimants' son William, born 2.13.98, was placed with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson at age 6 months by Contra Costa County. The disclosures required by;law were made to the adopting parents including the backgrounds of the birth mother an'd birth father, and the care William received in foster care from Ms. Cathy Behrendt before he was placed with the Johnsons. All medical records of drug addiction of Williatn and his withdrawal from addiction were provided to Mr. and Mrs.Johnson. In the adoption process the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Families Services disclosed in writing that William's birth mother was a drug addict, living in a residential drug treatment facility, and was "suffering from mental health problems given that she has had at least three psychiatric hospitalizations related to a drug overdose." In addition Contra Costa County reported that William was born "addicted" with features of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome,'and had been diagnosed with microcephaly. At that time Contra Costa County further disclosed: "(M)ost children with FAS have mild or borderline mental retardation. Most also have behavioral problems such as poor judgment, distractibility and difficulty recognizing social cues which can make it difficult for them to live independently as adults. * * * "he will likely suffer from permanent developmental delays . . . " See underlined portions of attached Exhibit 1. The Johnsons relied upon this disclosure and, even though William came from a drug addicted mother, William was accepted, adopted and is a member of their family today. In adopting two children of drug mothers through Contra Costa County and three children of a drug mother through the City and County of San Francisco,Mr.and Mrs. Johnson have refused to consider or'accept for adoption children who were sexually, physically,or otherwise abused. Contra Costa County learned that in 1998. Because William had a ten-year-old sister,Contra Costa County urged Mr. and Mrs. Johnson to also adopt this young girl. It is a common policy in adoptions to keep siblings together. The disclosure report for Willi'am's sister revealed that the birth mother "has a Iona-time history of alcohol,cocaine and amphetamine abuse for which she had not sought treatment during the Family Reunification period with her 10 year-old daughter :actual name known but redacted in this claim 1,placed in July, 1997,and subsequently, Willie, placed in February, 1998. Ms.1actual name known but redacted in this claim-1 19-year-old daughter factual name known but redacted in this claim stated to the Family Reunification social worker on September 11, 1998 that she had been in foster care her entire life." See underlined portions of attached Exhibit 2. In addition the report noted that when the girl "was five years of age her mother's brother got on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina; he kissed her on the mouth and touched her body all over * * * There were other incidents with cousins in Oakland that were reported as well." The Johnsons Refused a Child with a Background of Abuse After this disclosure by Contra Costa County, Mamie and Mark Johnson proceeded with the adoption of William,but rejected the offer to adopt William's sister. William's sister was not acceptable because she had been victimized by physical, sexual and other abuse. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson were concerned with protecting William from abuse by his sister and they did not want to take on the expected ramifications of dealing with an abused child in their home. It is for these reasons that the Johnsons did not adopt William's sister. In adoption of their daughtets Julia and Rachel from the City and County of San Francisco, the Johnsons received, as they had for William,full disclosures of family i i i i i background. There was no reported physical abuse of these youngsters. Both Julia and Rachel were adopted, after full disclOSllie that the birth mother was a drug addict. In every one of their adoptions, knowing that the birth mother was an addict did not bar the adoptions. What did bar an adoption was a history of physical, sexual or other abuse. The Adoption of Jordan Against this history, in July 200:1,Jordan,age 1 I months and a ward of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, was placed for emergency services by the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services with Mamie and Mark Johnson at their home in Walnut Creek,CA. Jordan was the fourth child to corne into the Johnson's home. Claimants understood Jordan had previously been in foster care in Richmond,CA. Based on their experience with both Contra Costa County and the City and County of San Francisco, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson expected that Contra Costa County would fully disclose to them Jordan's;family background,especially since they had made it clear to adoption authorities that while they were willing to take children that others rejected, i.e. the children of addicted mothers who were in fact addicted in utero,they would refuse an abused child, as they;had rejected William's sister. i As part of the Adoptive Placement Agreement of May 15, 2002 between Mamie and Mark Johnson and Contra Costa County Adoptions, Mr. and Mrs.Johnson were provided with purported disclosure d6cuments by Contra Costa County Department of Health and Human Services social worker Reynalda Ganding. i These documents disclose that in February 2000, before Jordan's birth,the birth mother was reported to have physically abused two of her children. In addition,the birth mother was reported as being homeless, having outstanding warrants for drugs, prostitution and stealing, plus two prostitution convictions in 1988 and 1997. The disclosure also reports the birth mother was involved in domestic violence,but is silent whether she was a victim or a perpetrator. i The reports of abusing older;children and domestic violence were not a concern because Jordan was taken from his mother immediately following his birth: "Jordan was placed on police hold when the birth mother and Jordan tested positive for drugs upon the baby's birth." The report reiteratedthat Jordan "tested positive for cocaine at birth and hence, was placed in police custody;." In reliance that Contra Costa County was telling them the truth, was in full compliance with the mandates of the California Family Law Code, and had made full disclosures to the Johnsons in the adoption of William, Mr. and Mrs.Johnson believed that the County had made a full and complete disclosure of Jordan's background as required by law. Mamie and Mark!Johnson trusted the County to obey the law and tell i I i i i i i I them truth of what it knew about Jordarn's family background. As a result,the Johnson relied on the County's disclosures and ripened their family, their home and their hearts to Jordan with his formal adoption on June 18, 2002. Jordan's Behaviors Reported to Contra Costa County Social Workers Within the five year anniversary of the June 18,2002 adoption,the Johnsons asked county social workers LaJeune Lee and Lois Rutten of Children and Family Services for financial assistance to provide appropriate care for Jordan. The Johnsons had reported to county social workers that Jordan had become increasingly and progressively difficult,and that his behaviors,at first challenging,had slowly progressed to being bizarre. While they had worked and hoped that their love and support would bring about improvement,that was not happening. Slowly Jordan was becoming worse. Jordan was unlike any of their other children. The Johnsons explained to these social workers how Jordan: • sets fires in the garage and in the family home. • steals from family members • steals money from teachers at school • sexually abused a classmate and a child of a family friend • attempted sexually abuse an older and a younger sibling • killed the fish in the family aquarium • attempted to smother the family cat • attempted to smother the family bird • hoards food • gorges on food and then vomits at the dinner table • urinates into bowls ana water glasses and places them on shelves as traps • urinates onto mattresses • urinates on the floors and walls of the home • smears feces on the walls in the bathroom • removes his clothes at school and other public places • destroys clothing and shoes • destroys furniture • hides soiled clothes in the house and backyard • takes soiled underwear to school in his backpack • commits repeated act's of violence and aggression against other children • physically and emotionally abuses siblings • constantly is disruptive in the class room • can no longer attend ,'after school day care or homework groups • sets off fire alarms at school • takes off his seatbeltwhile the car is moving • releases the seatbelt of siblings • continually puts objects in the toilets to cause backups • climbs out of windows at night • requires constant parental monitoring and Mrs.Johnson are informed and believe that they would not have adopted Jordan and would not have inflicted Jordan on their family,especially their then three,and now four, adopted chldren. Involved County Employees Claimants are informed and believe that at all times Reynalda Ganding had access to all records concerning Jordan's placement following his birth until placed with Mr. and Mrs.Johnson on an emergency basis in July 2001 and concealed from Mr.and Mrs. Johnson "all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life" required to be provided to adopting parents by Family Law § 8817. Claimants are informed and believe that at all times LaJeune Lee and Lois Rutten have had access to all records concerning Jordan's placement following his birth until placed with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson on an emergency basis in July 2001 and continue to conceal from Mr.and Mrs.Johnson"all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life" required to be provided to adopting parents by Family Law § 8817. Damage Suffered. Jordan is severely disturbed and his behaviors are not only bizarre and destructive but are placing the Johnsons and their children at grave physical risk of severe injury and death. Jordan is a danger to himself and to others. His four adopted siblings are the most likely candidates for serious harm. Ms. Patricia Malo,of Contra Costa County Child Protective Services,advised Mr. and Mrs.Johnson to lock Jordan in his room at night. Ms. LaJeune Lee,a county social worker supervising the adoptions assistance program in Contra Costa County, recommended that Jordan be confined at night in order to protect the Johnson's four other children. It is for these reasons that Jordan must and should be removed from the Johnson home immediately. As a direct, proximate and legal cause of its omissions and acts of concealment, Contra Costa County has caused Mr. and Mrs.Johnson to suffer severe mental and emotional distress and grief in adopting a child who has been abused, which they otherwise would have refused to adopt,as they had refused to adopt William's sister years earlier. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have suffered the total and complete disruption of their personal home,family and family life; the acts and omissions of Contra Costa County have impacted claimants' relationships with each other and their minor children, William, Julia, Rachel and Michael, by reason of the emotional distress and abuse inflicted on each them by Jordan. In addition, Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have had imposed on there the financial cost of providing medical,psychiatric and additional care and support for each of their minor children. As a further direct, proximate and legal cause of the County's concealment of information required by lawto be provided to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, William,Julia, Rachel and Michael have been caused to stiffer severe emotional distress and physical injuries. As a further direct,proximate and legal cause of the County's concealment of information required to be disclosed in the adoption of Jordan,the County has prevented Mr. and Mrs. Johnson from knowing all the facts necessary to either not accept Jordan or to secure appropriate care for Jordan,to his detriment. Under no circumstances should a child with Jordan's profound psychological disabilities and needs have been placed with adopting parents from whom it was concealed that Jordan's developmental history indicated he needed major psychiatric medical treatment. The concealment of necessary family background and psychological information from Mr. and Mrs.Johnson has denied, precluded and prevented Jordan from obtaining appropriate psychiatric placement and therapy causing Jordan's condition to further deteriorate. The County's concealment in this case has caused further damage to Jordan by denying him access to timely care and has caused Jordan additional and permanent damage. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the concealment by the County of Contra Costa of the true and complete extent of Jordan's family's medical background [psychological evaluations, developmental history and history of abuse) Jordan has been denied aggressive psychiatric intervention necessary for appropriate diagnosis, care and treatment. On information and belief,Jordan's condition,having been untreated for this period of time,will become permanent unless Jordan immediately begins to receive 24/7 supervision and care in a licensed residential treatment facility dedicated to providing services for seven year olds suffering from reactive attachment disorder such as suffered by Jordan. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have been quoted charges of$15,000 a month for such care and claimants demand that Contra Costa County immediately provide 24/7 residential care to treat Jordan's severe reactive attachment disorder. Contra Costa County social workers have advised that the County will only pay on the order of$5,000 to $6,000 a month for board and care. In addition to the damages inflicted on Jordan, the Johnson's children, William, Julia, Rachel and Michael all have suffered physical abuse and emotional distress inflicted on them by Jordan, all as a direct, proximate and legal cause of the concealment of Jordan's family background and developmental history from Mr. and Mrs.Johnson. In addition Mamie and Mark Johnson have suffered the financial expense of providing long-term residential care for Jordan,therapy for their family and counseling for William,Julia, Rachel and Michael. For all these reasons claimants demand e a fill and complete disclosure of all information regarding Jordan's developmental history and family life from birth until placement with the Johnsons in July 2001 • 24/7 full residential psychiatric care for Jordan paid by the County for as long as required • psychological counseling for each of the Johnson children and co-counseling; for Mr. and Mrs.Johnson as the primary care providers for their children • fair, reasonable and appropriate compensation for the abuse and suffering inflicted on each of them as a result of the fraudulent concealment of the developmental history and family life of Jordan Amount of Claims. Because of the.extensive damages suffered and the serious injuries inflicted on all seven individual claimants, the amount of all claims cannot be fully stated at this time. The actual amount of the general damages for pain and suffering suffered by claimants alone is well in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court and shall be determined by the jury at trial. In addition,Jordan and his parents have suffered devastating economic damages, the need for future psychiatric care,treatment in a residential facility,lost wages for Jordan for life and the cost of permanent lifetime psychiatric hospitalization. It is expected that Jordan will require lifetime mental hospitalization and supervision at an average cost of$15,000 a month I present dollars_1 for life, lifetime medications at a cost of$12,000 per year,and medical/advocate supervision at a cost of $10,000 a year for life. Absent lifetime care it is expected that Jordan as an adult will be convicted of crimes and incarcerated or will be hospitalized for mental illness. The total cost of life care for Jordan, without consideration for inflation for medical services, is approximately $16,000,000 in current dollars. In addition,Jordan will never be gainfully employed and has suffered a lifetime of lost earnings, reasonably estimated to be in excess of$1,800,000 (the estimated present value of lifetime wages for a high school graduate). Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 7,2008 Alexander Hawes, LLP X44 6 By Richard Alexander Attorneys for Claimants • I Willie Minor - Page 10 11 I Willie was tested at Children's Hospital for hearing on September 17, 1998 and 2 31 he has diminished hearing capacity in his malformed left ear. He has been assigned'a 4 i speech therapist who will visit the home twice a month to assess whether his language I 5 development is being negatively affected by his hearing loss. He will have plastic 61! surgery on his left ear when he is five years of age, at which point his ear will have reached 90% of its full size. . 8 MINOR'S DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS: 9 � 10 I Current Developmental Delays: 11 Willie's development is delayed because of his exposure to drugs and alcohol 12 I in utero. Dr. Chen wrote in her evaluation of May 14, 1998 that with Fetal Alcohol 131 i Syndrome " postnatal linear growth tends to remain retarded and the adipose tissue is i 1411 thin. These children look like they are failing to thrive. They tend to be irritable as 151ii8 I young infants, hyperactive as children. and more social as young adults. Most j I 1 i children with FAS have mild or borderline mental retardation. Most also have I 18 behavioral problems such as poor judgment, distractibility, and difficulty recognizing 19 social cues which can make it difficult for them to live independently as adults. It is too20 1 early to assess Willie for mental retardation. If there are concerns about Willie's 211 development or cognitive abilities in the future, he could be evaluated by a j 221 I developmental specialist " 2311 1 24I I The foster/adopt family was aware when Willie was placed with them that he j it 1 I 251 twill likely suffer from permanent developmental delays, but are committed to helping 2G!i him realize his potential to its fullest. When he had difficulty moving due to his 1 � 2 I 1 stiffness, they would get on the floor with him to help him learn to move his legs, one 28; I independent of the other Now, with the help of physical and occupational therapy li Exhibit 1 IIWillie Mincr - Page 12 I 1 i environment, and describe him as a child with "perfect magnetism." He calls his j 2� ; i 3 I caretakers "mama" and "dada." i Ii 4 Summary of Natural Parents' Medical History: i 5 Alleged Father: There is no information in the record about Mr. 6jI I medical history. 711 Mother: Ms. has a long-time history of alcohol, cocaine, and 3 amphetamine abuse for which she had not sought treatment during the Family 9 I 10 i Reunification period with her 10-year-old daughter, Monney, placed in July, 1997, and 11 subsequently ,Willie., placed in February, 1998. Ms. ' 19-year-old daughter, 12 stated to the Family Reunification social worker on September 11, 13 I 1998 that she had been in foster care her entire life. 11 4 Ms. recently entered substance abuse treatment on November 10, 161 , 1998 at the Sojourne Outpatient Counseling Center, and this treatment was verified I I 17111 through January 7, 1999. This two- month period is the longest she has spent in 11 18 ' treatment since Willie was born drug-positive in February, 1998 i 19 Summary of Natural Parents' Developmental History: I ; I i 2011 I Alleged Father: There is no information in the record about Mr. s j 21 I j developmental history. 22, i Mother: There is no information in the record about Ms. 2311 1 24; developmental history. ` I 95i I Summary of Parents' Education, Training, and Employment History: j 2G i Alleged Father: There is no information in the record about Mr. s it I; history other than he was on public assistance in August. 1998 `?Sit Mother: Ms was approximately 15 years of age when she � I Exhibit I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 1. the undersiuned, declare as folloNNs: 3 I ant no,,y and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the Iinited States, over the aye of eighteen years. and not a party to the within action or cause: i am employed in Santa Clara County. California. 4 and my business address is 1 tit North Third Street, Suite 600.San.lose. Santa Clara County, California. 5 (hl .3I1 1 g I served the attached as indicated helow: 6 SECOND AMENDED CLAIM FOR ADOPTION FRAUD 7 _x (by mail) on all parties in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §101 3. by placing a true cop)'thereof enclosed in a scaled envelope in a designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set 8 firth below. At.Alexander IIawes. LLP, mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of postage. and is deposited that sante day in the ordinary-course of business in a United States mailbox in the Cite of San Jose, California. 1 (by personal delivery) by causing said document to be personally delivered by courier to the person(s) at the address set forth below. 1 l by Federal Express)by depositing a true copy thereof in a scaled packet for overnight delivery. \yith 12 charges thereon fully prepaid, in a Federal Express collection box in San Jose, Calif-61111a. a. - (hv Licsimile transmission) by transmitting said docurnent(s) fr0111 011l'nfflCe facsimile machine 1 — (405.28%.1776) to facsimile machine number(s) shown below. Following transmission. I received a "I rallsllllssion Report" from our facsinilc machine indicating that the transmission had been 14 transmitted Without error. 15 Clerk of the Board of Super isors County .Administration Building, Rm. 106 16 651 fine Street 17 Martinez. CA 94553 is Monika L. Cooper Depute County COL111SCl 19 Office of the County Counsel —County ofContra Costa -)0 651 Pine Street, 9°i Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 21 I declal'e unifier penalty of perjury under the laws f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on at San.lose. California. 23 24 25 26 22 28 I CLAiM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: Claim Against the County, or District Governed by. ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endoiisernents, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are.to ) The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. ) you is your notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all AMOUNT: � C? 6,7c:7!0. e7 '°Warnings". CLAIMANT: :S SQ)WL ATTORNEY: DATE RECEIVED: `�WV.r C 0 S' ADDRESS: S� .,Y� t.Oe_!) I-e j �Pe•?C')ooRM(ABY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: 7l7 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: %fit 2 ►�" FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supet•vsors T0: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN CULLEN,^Clerk Dated: �� �� CF By: Deputy j c' II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors I ( ) This claim complies substantially (with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannoti act for 15 days (Section 910.8). • I ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should retum claim on ground that it was filed late and send waiining of claimant's right to a}iply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: I By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV._BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. O Other: I certify that this is a true and con•ect copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: JOHN CULLEN, CLERK, By eputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to ceitain exceptiois,you have only six(6) months froin tine ate this notice was personally served or deposited in the nlail to file a court action on this claim.See Government Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of'an attorney ol'your choice in connection with this matter. If'you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side ofTlnis Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury 'that i am now, and at all tinnes herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States,, over age 18; =and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, alifornia, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Clahni it, addressed to the claimai hown above. Dated: O1v JO14N CULLEN, CLERK B Deputy Clerk I • I AW . �3 7%; D BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAR 14 2008 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT COUNT JTEZ CALIF• A. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personM perty or growing crops shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other. cause of action shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code § 911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this form. ■■MONoMMommtommomoomwomtnMEmanMENnommoommommommom0NONEaWEnomommommonRoomOEMon01 RE: Claim By: Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp S IA)es fp.waubog 164 Against the County of Contra Costa or ) S k.s ,� e AlJa V+* ) � �'v ��)�F District) (Fill in the name) ) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named district in the sum of$ S Dr,00 n , D 0.and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 3--7- 0 0906 h,�s 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) c �ovnf M�r�-�►�.�-L fie, �wria►v Fa�dl;�'�, f'1.�1^tiA/.azJ�, cl $Y3 � C0 VA Cos � l 3. - How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) Gtv�►v d_I'Sc►plj' 2, for r ��sfiN� Me i'c_c�Fiocv hef&- 30"'� T® Govr�'. �� ;4tkoV�.fc� 4. What partic az act or onussi n on the part of county or district officers, servants, or employees caused the injury or damage? C0 r re.� i N ��I rv.5 i�� s- a er�F� c��a�A15 f e�t,�,, 5 What are the names of county or district officers, seivants, or employees causing the damage or injury? .��t. .�/ fe5 5�fo► �eh �v��-