Here is the Center for Judicial Excellence’s response to Judge Boren and Ms. Kim Turner’s Op Ed about the recent Family Court Audit last Friday, which appears in today’s Marin Independent Journal.
The IJ editors replaced my reference to Ms. Turner’s involvement in the document destruction with a more general reference to “the court,” though the Marin Court has posted the August AOC report acknowledging her pivotal role in the destruction on their website home page.
Marin Voice: Audit unveils court problems
http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_17221225
By Kathleen Russell
Guest op-ed column
Posted: 01/28/2011 01:59:00 AM PST
THE California Bureau of State Audits last week released its 109-page report, detailing the results of its 17-month audit of the Marin and Sacramento Family Courts.
Across the board and on nearly every measured aspect, the Sacramento and Marin family courts failed to meet the minimum standards required by law.
So you may wonder what the latest audit of the Marin family court means, and how the same report described by state Sen. Mark Leno as “quite disturbing” could be hailed by local Marin court officials as “proving beyond any doubt” that “there’s no problem.”
Simple. The Marin Court has deliberately mischaracterized this audit as comprehensive and boasted that “the report does not contain a single finding of “… judges and mediators putting children at risk.”
Interestingly, the Center for Judicial Excellence and our allies drafted an earlier audit request focused on evaluating “increasing evidence that children in custody disputes are being removed from their primary, non-abusive caretakers and placed in the custody of parents who have been identified as the children’s physical or sexual abusers.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts — the lobbying arm of the California courts — labeled these “very serious allegations” and fought to narrow the scope of the audit, explaining in a May 19, 2009 letter, “these claims cannot be verified or refuted by the data collected in the audit.”
The Marin Court has apparently forgotten the California judiciary’s stated position on the parameters of a viable audit.
The audit provides a valuable explanation as to why things remain awry in the Marin family court.
Consider some of the findings: The Marin Office of Family Court Services could not demonstrate that five of the seven family court mediators met even the minimum qualifications and training necessary to perform mediations and make custody recommendations. The court does not document and track complaints and potential conflicts of interest and their dispositions.
The Marin mediators’ current supervisor is not qualified to perform clinical supervision of family court mediators regarding its individual cases, as required by law.
For all eight sampled complaints filed against mediators, the manager did not document whether he consulted with the mediator during the complaint investigation. In a considerable number of instances, the audit reported “limitations in their ability to determine the number of complaints received,” making their data unreliable.
We must wonder whether the mass document destruction by the court and others during an eight-month standoff with the state auditor contributed to the significant gaps in recordkeeping.
The Marin Court could not demonstrate that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain requirements. For three of the five sample cases that the auditor reviewed involving a private custody evaluator, domestic violence training certificates were not attached to completed evaluation reports, as required by California Rules of Court.
Quality control issues dominate the report.
Because of the national impact of our work to protect children in family court, the center was recognized in October by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at an intimate White House ceremony commemorating Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
We were also honored to coordinate and facilitate the first White House briefing on the national family court crisis last May.
While the Marin Court seems unable or unwilling to accept auditor criticism and instead is attacking the center, we remain steadfast in our nearly five-year commitment to try to work collaboratively with the Marin Court to improve its service to our community’s children.
We invite the Marin Superior Court to enlist the Marin County Bar Association and other interested stakeholders in a community forum to discuss how we can collaborate to transform Marin’s Family Court into a model of best practices that protects children and makes us all proud.
Kathleen Russell is executive director of the Marin Center for Judicial Excellence.
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it remarkable that under the prominant “News From the Court” section on homepage of the Marin Superior Court website, the Court has posted an unprofessional, misleading and inflammatory local newspaper op-ed written by Presiding Judge Boren and Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner about the legislative audit of the Marin Court, rather than a direct link to the audit itself?
After all, in that “News From the Court” section they posted a direct link to the 2002 “National Center For State Courts Operational Review” of the Marin Court, which was requested by the Marin Court years ago, ostensibly to respond to litigant complaints of bias and cronyism in the Marin Court set forth in the now infamous “Winner Report”. Only thing is, that NCSC 2002 report specifically and repeatedly states that it didn’t address those bias issues, and fell all over itself talking about how cooperative the Marin court was in providing access to its records.
In that “News From the Court” section they also posted a direct link to the self-exonerating Fall, 2010 AOC report excusing the mass destruction of important Marin Family Court Services mediation records by the AOC, Kim Turner, Verna Adams, and Marin Family Court Services. The destruction took place while the AOC and Marin Court were blocking the state auditor’s access to Marin Family Court information for 10 long months.
Interesting propaganda techniques being used by the court on a public, “official” presumably state-funded website . . . . .
From Wikipedia:
“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.”
JusticeCalifornia is organizing information in response to the court propaganda prominantly featured on the Marin Court’s official, presumably state-funded website. It will take a few days, but it will be forthcoming.
SF Whistle
January 29, 2011
JC—
It is not just you—-I have looked at Marin Superior Court’s opening page and am appalled that one person’s opinion (Judge Boren) and innuendo is allowed to be posted as if it is a legal opinion—His trashy little hearsay diatribe is posted in a very official fashion. I have previously written about his attacks on the CJE, a “vocal attorney” and writing as if he has actual knowledge of the funding of his opposition……his attack piece should not be the opening page of the Court’s website. This page is emblematic of misconduct and abuse–
If they are going to engage in such cheap, shoddy defensive tactics they should be required to post opinion pieces from others–We are funding his ability to misuse State resource.
Marin Court should answer for this abuse of power —-whether through litigation or adminishment from the CJP—
I recall in the cold war that the Soviets filtered all news through the Politburo….Judge Boren’s SPIN on the audit should NOT be permitted to be posted in this manner—-WHO will take them on?
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 29, 2011
Actually it appears the whole left column falls in the propaganda description. I don’t think I would allow a serial killer/rapist to babysit my teenage daughter and I would put about the same level of trust and confidence on any report that exonerates the marin courts that was produced by my soon to be newest member of the wall of shame, John “The Cleaner” Judnick.
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
I think that the quid pro quo “wetwork cleaner”, “reacharound” nature of the branch will become apparent, as the stories surrounding the problems addressed in the audit surface in response to the Boren/Turner propaganda. The Marin courts and court personnel (especially recommending court mediators), and certain court appointees and MCBA bar association officials have knowingly and intentionally — or at a minimum, negligently and/or recklessly– participated in placing children at risk, and everybody was told about it. No one did anything (except cover it up — including the high priced outside counsel hired to defend the court — Meyers Nave, I will continue to point you out and publicly shame you for your willing participation in these family court travesties that have harmed innocent children — and Patricia Sepulveda, I do believe you belong on the public wall of shame as well ) until the JLAC committee stepped in, and the auditor was able to verify what was being reported.
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
First District, Appellate Divisions Three and Four, CJP, MCBA — review the Marin family court cases over the last 15 or so plus long and horrible years.
Gosh, people have been documenting and writing about all of this for so long. . . .
In response to that Boren/Turner propaganda, I am first compiling news articles about Marin family court travesties, before launching into hardcore e-mail, correspondence/court transcripts documenting Marin court misconduct.
Woo hoo. This is quite a project.
SF Whistle
January 29, 2011
I believe there is another project that should be handled on an ex parte basis.
When I look at the Marin County Superior Court Homepage:
http://www.marincourt.org/
I find an op-ed piece authored by Judge Boren and the infamous Kim Turner….(interesting that it took both of them to create such distortion and misinformation)
It is my impression that Judge Boren is a State employee and has no greater right to post his opinion on the Court website than anyone else.
I believe that an ex parte motion should be filed DEMANDING that his opinion be taken down—or that in the alternative Kathleen Russell’s op-ed that was published in the Marin IJ as response to his be placed side by side.
Judge Boren demonstrates that he feels certain he has more rights than other citizens in Marin County—-he is wrong—-he has no more right to publish his opinion in this place than any other person—
Will someone take on this “project”?
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
FYI.
Michael Dufficy and friends and children, Verna Adams, Lynn Duryee and Neil Moran, Bev Wood and Peter Kleinbrodt, Ali Quam, Freitas McCarthy, Roy and Renee Chernus, Matt White, Beth Jordan, Clay Greene, Chris Kirby, Ed Berberian, Paul Haakenson, Kelly Veiera, Scott Lueders, Lynn Holton, Brad Campbell, the Commission on Judicial Performance, Kim Turner, Gloria Wu, Meredith Braden, Leo Terbeiten, Kristin Diefenbach, Toni Heineman, David Donner, Donna Hitchens, Ron George, various of those in the Marin Sheriff’s and D.A.s office, various of those in the appellate courts, and many othes are fair game, in light of Boren/Turner’s false allegations as posted on the Marin Superior Court website.
Naming names is often considered dangerous. But I just named a lot of names. So sue me, and let’s have a jury trial.
Regards, JusticeCalifornia
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 29, 2011
That’s my attitude. I have a first amendment right, backed up by some compelling evidence when someone is sentenced to digital purgatory. I name names. Sue me and let’s have a jury trial.
JCW
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
JCW, what is digital purgatory?
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 29, 2011
The wall of shame
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/the-judicial-branch-wall-of-shame/
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
Gosh, I forgot Francisca Tischer. Check out her history.
So many have known about Marin court corruption, so many did nothing to correct it, and so many have facilitated and/or have covered it up.
More anon.
Ctr for Judicial Excellence
January 29, 2011
The misleading Op Ed by Boren and Turner on the Marin Court website reminds me of the time a few years back when the Marin Court was exposed at a Marin County Bd of Supes meeting for referring family court litigants to a therapist/counselor who openly bragged on his myspace page that he was into hallucinogens and was a “stoner,” among other things. The court quickly took the referral off their website within 24 hours of that testimony, which was webcast for the public to see. They appear to use that website in all kinds of questionable ways…. and they have for many years, because they can and because no one enforces the fact that it is a public, taxpayer funded website. That therapist is still quite plugged into the court and county- and I am sure he is still getting referrals.
SF Whistle
January 30, 2011
There must be a way to stop this practice—-there is no justification for the “questionable ways” that this publicly funded website is used. If Judge Boren wants to back up his misrepresentations and deliberately misleading statements as legal opinion rather than personal opinion—-let’s have it…
I want to see Boren called upon to cite legal authority to support his statements that “enough is enough”….It also seems it is time for Senator Leno to be called upon to respond to Boren’s “opinion”….It would be helpful to learn whether Boren’s recalcitrant response clears up the matter for Senator Leno.
JusticeCalifornia
January 29, 2011
Oh, and yes, that is Michael Mesmer.
Quite a resume/cv, for the Marin Court, which appears to consult with him, on a regular and intimate basis.
Let me add him to my list of names that I have named.
SF Whistle
January 30, 2011
I am still stuck on the fact that the Marin Superior Court opens their website with the Op-Ed misrepresentations of Presiding Judge Boren.
When one reflects upon this hyper-defensive, highly misleading work of Boren’s in light of JusticeCalifornia’s list of names you get a deeper understanding of why Boren is so desperate.
So many of the names listed by JC are part of an enterprise that would be charitably referred to as very inappropriate and harshly identified as something with a criminal designation. Boren struggles so much and appears as desperate as he does because he must. How does one properly defend the indefensible?
Marin Court provides new meaning to terms like chronyism and incestuousness….The Freitas McCarthy firm’s relationship to the court….Ali Quam’s employment with the court ( from Freitas McCarthy)—-that fellow, Michael Mesmer, mentioned by JC and CJE is not just an inappropriate “professional” to enjoy a strategic relationship with the court–he is also a porn producer….These are but a few of the names on JC’s list. I look forward to getting to know them better with JC’s promised postings.
The quality and content of Boren’s misleading defense is something he has had recent practice at. One is reminded that just months ago Judge Boren defended destruction of court documents as “an innocuous effort to save storage space”. He took the same shots at anyone that dared present legitimate complaints indicating it was all “silliness”…..The “investigation” of these unlawful acts was anything other than an investigation and was undertaken by none other than John Judnick. Judnick issued a report that was far from legal opinion inasmuch as he is not even an attorney. Boren was equally dismissive, equally assaultive upon critics and equally evasive and deceptive in his anemic defense of those acts, although ostensibly they no longer destroy documents and Boren conceded it was unwise.
It really is high time to take a hard look at what appears to be something that sure resembles a criminal, incestuous enterprise. I don’t agree with Boren’s opinion that “enough is enough”—–seems to me that the recent audit is a nice place to start.
I am well aware that Boren, much like the AOC is convinced he answers to no one….
It is time for a “teachable moment”….
JusticeCalifornia
January 30, 2011
SF whistle, as I recall Marin therapist Michael Mesmer wasn’t a porn producer, he starred as “porn hound Uncle Mike” (according to one review) in a movie called Deadtime Stories.
On his myspace page, as I recall, he listed psilocybin as an interest, and yes I believe he referred to himself on one page as a stoner– the pages were brought to the board of supes meeting. That taped meeting (and others involving reports of family court misconduct) should be available online. The Marin family court was referring families to Mesmer.
It is my understanding that he still advises the court– I do not know the details.
I have named names, but I am not going to invite anyone else to join me, and I am going to be careful to be as accurate as possible when discussing them.
SF Whistle
January 31, 2011
Sorry—I certainly would not want to disparage or misrepresent this fellows past. There are a number of postings in various places on the internet indicating a number of interesting things about Mesmer’s past. I understand all this was heard before Marin County officials in April 2008. Curious that he is now back in favor and in a situation of “advising the court” today? “Porn hound Uncle Mike” sounds like the perfect person to help Judge Boren in his decision making.—-my grandfather was fond of saying that “water seeks it’s own level.”
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 31, 2011
It’s a good bet that this thread was viewed by the courts with over 900 reads since its inception a few days ago.
JusticeCalifornia
January 31, 2011
JCW, thank you for making a separate thread regarding Marin. Those who are interested can read, those who are not can skip it.
The Marin Grand Jury wanted to investigate the Marin Family Court in 1997 based on the volume and nature of complaints they were receiving from litigants. The Grand Jury was reportedly told by County Counsel that they lacked the authority to do so. Fourteen long years, a couple of disgraced Court Executive Officers, and an as-yet unknown number of additional damaged children later, the Marin Court is still embroiled in a public smackfest denying that anything at all is wrong.
What makes this particularly problematic is that the Marin Court has indeed gotten it very, very wrong for many years and parents and children are paying the price. Consider the lessons to be learned from the Krause case, the Mardeusz case, the Rogers case. . . . .read these news stories. These are just a few of many such stories.
http://www.childhoodwithoutfear.org/us/pas/letting_children_speak.htm
(Krause)
http://www.sfweekly.com/2002-12-18/news/girl-interrupted/#
(Krause)
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/kd,paulakamena,kellyvieirasimmons,error,carolmardeusz.htm
(mardeusz — scroll down and read all the links)
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,leomagersupdate,babylee,11,23,04.htm
(mardeusz)
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_4161831?IADID=Search-www.marinij.com-www.marinij.com
(Rogers)
http://stopfamilyviolence.org/info/custody-abuse/custody-news/mom-acquitted-of-abducting-child
(Rogers)
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,dufficy12,5,02.htm#The%20Dufficy%20Family%20of%20Marin%20County,%20California
(Dufficy CJP letters)
http://www.sfweekly.com/2000-10-18/news/odor-odor-in-the-court/#
I would like to say the bad Marin stories stopped in 2005/2006, but the fact is some of the worst custody debacles Marin has seen are came about under the 2007-2009 family court reign of Judge Verna Adams. Elements of court cruelty, sadism, bias/discrimination, retaliation, and disregard for the facts and law marked these cases. Some of these stories were presented for consideration by Senator Leno and the JLAC committee. We are just now beginning to see the “full-circle” effects on the children subject of some of the horrific rulings made during this time period — a number of which were based in whole or in part on Marin Family Court Services custody recommendations. Luckily, on May 21, 2007, Marin Family Court Services supervisor Leo Terbeiten and mediator Gloria Wu were cross-examined at length about their general ignorance of and systemic non-compliance with mandatory state mediation laws and procedures. This testimony, and other documentation of the actions of the Marin Family Court during this 2007-2009 time period, was widely disseminated. Lots of writs, appeals, 170.1’s and CJP complaints were filed, and the court reporters were kept very busy. Parents and children who had been to hell and back found their voices and began telling their stories. Loudly.
I daresay quite a few individuals around this state have Marin Family Court blood on their hands and/or stories in their heads (and in their files and e-mail inboxes) that – unlike the damning Family Court Services files destroyed by the Marin Court (Verna Adams, Kim Turner, Leo Terbeiten, to be precise) with the AOC’s blessing while the JLAC audit was pending– will not go away.
More anon.
Before this smackfest continues, I again invite the Marin Court to remove that false and misleading Marin Voice propaganda piece from the state court website which is undoubtedly funded by taxpaers. And perhaps it would care to make a public apology to those it has maligned — and those families it has harmed.
Regards, JusticeCalifornia
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 31, 2011
I believe that anything (and everything) that can get out there from e-mail, to documents, to links to storys concerning, anything that creates the underlying basis for 10 years of complaints should be posted. There is a reason for everything and its no secret that the BSA hands these preliminary reports to the courts for their review and comment prior to release. If there are contentious issues, like there likely is over the AOC’s finance department or CCMS reviews, the AOC will comment the things to death. With the AOC ruling that it was okay to destroy records, there was nothing for the BSA to stand on in that regards. Had they not ruled on the records destruction, how would that report have turned out? “Court illegally destroys court records” would be at the top of the list. Besides, wasn’t there an admission in the JC meeting that the report was not composed by Judnick but was composed by the AOC’s office of General Counsel, the same brain donors who told Turner to move ahead with the destruction?
One unrelated matter – When one posts links (ie more than one) to an outside source, those messages usually have to be manually approved and since I have a life that might take awhile for me to get to a computer and approve. This is an automatic feature of the spam filter that I can’t adjust.
Ctr for Judicial Excellence
January 31, 2011
I’ve been speaking to FBI agents this afternoon. It seems our complaint about document destruction is finally getting some needed attention.
wendy darling
January 31, 2011
The Marin Court wasn’t the only place where documents were destroyed. There was all that shredding at the AOC last year after the JLAC audit of the Marin and Sacramento Family Law courts was announced, as well as the JLAC-ordered audit of the CCMS and the AOC’s financial practices. While they’re in the neighborhood, maybe the FBI could look into that as well …
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 2, 2011
I wonder if our friends over at 455 Golden Gate have turned on the Narus STA 6400’s yet. From what I’ve viewed, a RICO case could be made on STA processing alone.
JusticeCalifornia
January 31, 2011
The FBI should be carefully investigating what appears to be racketeering/criminal behavior/public corruption in the third branch.
As I prepare my next posts over the next weeks and months, I want to say that JusticeCalifornia’s writings are the responsiblity of JusticeCalifornia. They have been and are separate and apart from anyone else’s — including but not limited to the Center for Judicial Excellence, which is far more diplomatic than JusticeCalifornia.
JusticeCalifornia has the experience, files, and personal liberty to do and say things others cannot.
So, with that introduction, here we go.
JusticeCalifornia
January 31, 2011
From: “Barbara Kauffman”
Date: January 30, 2011 5:24:14 PM PST
To: “‘Kris Cirby'”
Subject: RE: BSA Final Audit Issued
Hi Kris.
I find your e-mail below very troubling, particularly since it is sent in your capacity as Legal Services Director of the Family and Children’s Law Center.
The Audit discussed at length issues regarding the handling of complaints about Marin Family Court Services.
The Marin court has defiantly denied inconsistencies in handling complaints about Marin Family Court Services.
You have personal knowledge that Family Court Services personnel have not followed the complaint process set forth in the local rules, and that Family Court Services mediators have not known or followed state laws and procedures. I invite you to review your e-mails from me, with attachments (testimony of Marin Family Court mediators), sent September 24, 2007.
I was trying to figure out why you have been such an active participant in defending the court, even though you have personal knowledge of court and especially Family Court Services misconduct. On October 12, 2010, the day of the document destruction protest at the Marin courthouse, you were on the court floor with Beth Jordan, handing out information defending the court and Marin Family Court Services on behalf of the court.
So today I researched your organization, and found that it admittedly “relies” on the “continuing generosity” of your “key funders”, two of whom are the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the County of Marin. Isn’t it correct that they help pay your salary?
I am concerned that you are using your position to assure people (and I do wonder how many people you copied on the below e-mail) that the court has NOT “engaged in any of the conduct alleged by family court critics over the last decade”. I wonder how some of your clients and other donors would feel about your e-mail, in light of the information you were given on September 24, 2007, and the fact that you appear to have a serious conflict of interest.
I invite you to send a clarifying e-mail to everyone who was copied on the below e-mail, informing them that your organization is dependent upon funding from the AOC and the County of Marin; that you are in personal possession of information (sworn testimony of Family Court Services personnel, among other things) showing that the court HAS engaged in conduct alleged by family court critics, including mishandling of Family Court Services complaints; and that you apologize if anyone thought you were assuring the public that the Marin court has NOT engaged in conduct alleged by family court critics.
Best Regards, Barbara Kauffman
________________________________________
From: Kris Cirby [mailto:kcirby@faclc.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Kris Cirby
Subject: BSA Final Audit Issued
The Bureau of State Audits has concluded its audit of the Marin Family Court. The auditors found no evidence that the court has engaged in any of the conduct alleged by family court critics over the last decade.
The report is lengthy, since both Marin’s and Sacramento’s audits are included in it. The BSA attached a copy of Marin’s response to the earlier draft report as an appendix to the report. Since it is near the back of the report, I attach it for your perusal and to help you to see the types of recommendations made, primarily in the area of record keeping. As you will see, many of the BSA’s recommendations pertain to somewhat inconsequential issues.
The Court already uploaded the entire audit report on our website at http://www.marincourt.org on the Public Express sidebar if you would like to read it in its entirety. The court will have a Marin Voice press release in the Marin IJ which will run in Friday’s paper.
Here is the link to entire Audit. http://www.marincourt.org/pdf/FCS_Audit.pdf
Kris Cirby
Legal Services Director
______________________________________________
Family & Children’s Law Center
30 North San Pedro Rd., #245
San Rafael, CA 94903
Tel: (415) 492-9230 Fax: (415) 479-2553
kcirby@faclc.org
http://www.faclc.org
peppermint pattie
January 31, 2011
Some interesting tidbits today heard in the hallways of 455 Golden Gate Ave. There was a meeting with the new Chief Justice and all of the top adminstration (including all division directors, assistant division directors, senior managers, and managers) of the AOC this morning. That meeting ended sometime in the early to mid-afternoon, but was resumed later with the new Chief Justice, after all the line staff had left for the day and were out of the building. Apparently, they were all going to be there awhile tonight, as food was being catered in for dinner with the new Chief Justice.
Also, there were some indicators today that the AOC has suddenly decided to suspend the internal hiring recruitments of the new employees for OCCM and IT, and the positions will instead be filled as special consultants.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 1, 2011
Thank you for this valuable tidbit. Special consultant = temporary employee at twice the going rate. I’m happy to see her active and possibly even taking the reigns over at the AOC. When she starts clearing my wall of shame with terminations she will earn my respect and in doing so, avoid ending up on it herself.
JusticeCalifornia
January 31, 2011
My last post about Kris Cirby is awaiting moderation (sorry JCW, for the links), and perhaps that is just as well.
In the meanwhile, I will say this:
A. Many say that the culture of cronyism fostered in the Marin Court has destroyed the integrity and reputation not just of the Marin Court and top bar members, but of the entire branch. I personally believe that the efforts of Ron George and company to enlist bar members to act as “mouthpieces” to defend judges in order to “protect the independence” of the bench has done as much or more to compromise the integrity of the branch as anything else. Top members of the bar are encouraged to lie and cover up court misconduct they know exists. Ditto regarding bench members who are encouraged to engage in denial, intellectual dishonesty, and some would say outright collusion, in order to protect judicial misconduct they know exists.
B. JusticeCalifornia is NOT attacking the Marin Family and Children’s Law Center as a whole in the above (awaiting moderation) post. It IS calling out Kris Cirby for using her official taxpayer-funded position — presumably without the knowledge or permission of her organization’s supervisors, board members, clients, and donors– to place Marin children at further risk by disingenously leading the public to believe her false assurances that nothing is or has been wrong in the Marin Court.
JusticeCalifornia
January 31, 2011
P.S. Interesting fact: yesterday, the Marin Family and Children’s Law Center website listed the Administrative Office of the Courts as a “key funder” upon whom it “relies” for its “continuing generosity”. Today (less than 24 hours later) after the above Kris Cirby e-mail exchange, the AOC’s name was removed from the Law Center website. Perhaps, after the AOC’s direct involvement in the destruction of incriminating Marin Family Court Services records in the middle of a state audit, the AOC was not anxious to be traced to a lawyer a) whose salary is apparently funded in part by the AOC and Marin County; and b) is apparently knowingly and falsely assuring the public on behalf of the court that the auditors found no evidence that the court and Family Court Services have engaged in any of the conduct alleged by family court critics.
At this point, JusticeCalifornia reiterates that it assumes Ms. Cirby was acting without the knowledge and permission of those she works for at the Family and Children’s Law Center. It would be a shame for the Law Center’s clients to be harmed by her indiscriminate use of the Law Center’s name in connection with her mass “information” disseminations .
JusticeCalifornia invites Ms. Cirby to retract her e-mails sent under the auspices of the Family and Children’s Law Center.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 1, 2011
One only needs to read the cover page of the report to know that Boren and Turner are full of shit. Here is what the cover page to the audit report says in nice bold letters.
“Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules”
One does not make a statement like that as an audit cover sheet unless:
1) Family court appointees lack the required qualifications or cannot otherwise prove that they are qualified.
2) Policies and procedures are sloppy, unenforced, ignored or non-existent
3) The court is not complying with laws and rules.
So without going beyond the cover page of the JLAC audit of the Marin and Sacramento courts this is what the cover page says to me. To somehow read into that there is nothing wrong makes me wonder if someone has been sucking on a crack pipe too much.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 1, 2011
A coworker pointed to the drug de jour as being the likely offender – snorting bath salts. It is alleged to have a hallucinegenic effect which would better explain the boren/turner position and its still legal.
wendy darling
February 1, 2011
More accurately described as drinking the kool-aid.
Ctr for Jud Excellence
February 1, 2011
Click below to read yesterday’s editorial from the Marin Independent Journal about the State Auditor’s report on the Marin and Sacramento Family Courts, with commentary on the Marin Court’s attack on the Center for Judicial Excellence.
I remain quite struck by the completely different approaches being taken by the Sacramento and Marin family court officials in their responses to this audit.
http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_17231660
SF Whistle
February 1, 2011
CJE–
You’ve got it right —-there’s quite a contrast in the response of Sacramento and Marin–
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/21/3340267/california-audit-criticizes-sacramento.html
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
The Marin Presiding Judge — who is bound by the Code of Judicial Ethics– and Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner, both of whom should know better, have chosen to personally attack critics in an apparent attempt to divert public attention away from the facts surrounding the audit’s findings about Marin Family Court Services. The Boren/Turner comments and conduct are so far out of line that they are being corrected and given tips on how to behave by the local newspaper (is that prima facie evidence of a Canon 1 violation?)
Meanwhile, I am spending my evenings putting together a sample of the audit comments, the law and the facts, including sworn testimony of Marin Family Court Services personnel about systemic ignorance of and non-compliance with the law. The testimony was widely disseminated so the powers that be could not (and cannot) say they didn’t know, and it would be downright hilarious, if these “unprofessionals” were not making thousands of custody recommendations that are routinely rubber stamped by the Marin family court.
This may give readers an intimate appreciation of what “no problem” means to the Marin Family Court and others of those in the branch. Incidentally, the case in which the Marin Family Court Services testimony was given was sitting in front of Ron George’s court at the same time the AOC and Turner were blocking state auditor access to Marin Family Court case information, and at the very same time the AOC gave Kim Turner, Verna Adams and Marin Family Court Services supervisor Leo Terbieten the green light to engage in the mass destruction of Marin Family Court Services mediation files.
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
From: Barbara Kauffman [mailto:kauffmanlaw@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:26 PM
To: ‘lynn_duryee@marincourt.org’; ‘kturner@co.marin.ca.us’;
‘scott_beseda@marincourt.org’; ‘RBarone@co.marin.ca.us’;
‘neil_cossman@marincourt.org’; ‘richards73@hotmail.com’;
‘bos@co.marin.ca.us’
Subject: FW: Payroll Information
I am writing to express my grave concern that I am not getting any
substantive response to my multiple public records information requests. I
initially asked Ms. Turner and Presiding Judge Duryee for information about
Scott Lueders–who is often appointed as minor’s counsel by the court– via
two letters dated May 3, 2007, due to my concerns about his apparent
practice of overbilling the county (or court), and a giant payraise he
apparently received in lots of cases in one fell swoop from Judge Duryee in
or about February of 2005. Those letters are attached hereto.
I didn’t get any answer to my letters.
Next I sent two letters to Auditor/Controller Arrow, asking for information
about two Marin Family Court Services mediators (Gloria Wu and Leo
Terbeiten), and three attorneys who had been appointed by the court to serve
as minor’s counsel (Scott Lueders, Judy Cohen, and Mary Halbert.) Those
letters are also attached. I received no answer, so I stopped in and met Mr.
Arrow’s assistant Gary Burroughs. He called me later and told me he had
been told I should direct my inquiries to the Court. I then received a
direct call from Mr. Arrow, who told me the same thing, but I told him about
Family Code section 1800 et. seq. –regarding my request about the
mediators. (I am concerned about how much Terbeiten and Wu are being paid
in public monies, because they are both unaware of and noncompliant with
local and state law and rules of court–see the 5.10.2007 letter, and the
5/21/2007 transcript of their amazing court testimony, attached hereto). FC
sections 1814 (c) and (d) appear to involve the Board of Supervisors in the
administration of funds regarding Family Court Services mediators. Mr. Arrow
said he would check again on my requests and get back to me. I heard nothing
more from Mr. Arrow.
Last week I sent an e-mail to Judge Duryee and Kim Turner, again asking for
the information. I received nothing.
Today I called Mr. Arrow to follow up, and talked to his assistant, Reina,
who sent me an e-mail from county counsel (the pdf attached hereto) which
Mr. Burroughs had also faxed to me.
I asked for information about Scott Lueders as far back as last May, and
have received nothing. On April 26, 2007 my client filed a motion to remove
Mr. Lueders from a case I have for serious cause involving the welfare of a
young boy –I wanted to research and likely show that he has performed in a
substandard manner, and has been knowingly overpaid by the court–in a lot
more cases than one. But in order to do that I need to know in what other
cases he has been appointed and paid by the county/court–and no one will
give me that information.
The bottom line is this: “I can’t get no satisfaction”, as they say. And I
am not happy. The withholding of this information has had serious
consequences for my client. I won’t go into detail, but here is the nutshell
version: Mr. Lueders and Gloria Wu recommended that my client–who last
spring filed motions to remove each of them for serious cause– should lose
all custody of her child, and this month Verna Adams tentatively adopted
that recommendation, and issued an ex parte order stripping that mother of
all custodial rights. I think the recommendations –and the Adams order–
were retaliatory. Read the 5.10.07 letter to see what the issues in the case
are, and the 5.21.07 transcript to see that this recommendation was issued
in violation of all kinds of state law. (I am waiting for all of the trial
transcripts, which are consistent with the 5/21/07 transcript) I have heard
from multiple other persons that Lueders and Wu are doing the same thing in
their cases. I want to know how much these court connected individuals have
been/are being paid for NOT doing their jobs. I think I, and the public,
have a right to know. People are wrongfully losing their children, their
child support, and more, at the hands of these people, who are not following
the law. It would appear (and again, I am trying to research this) that a
horrific little scandal is brewing here, and it is only going to get bigger,
the longer it is covered up.
I reiterate my request for information. It has been a lot more than 10 days
since I asked.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
As with my prior e-mails of last week, this e-mail is being copied to Jason
Richards of the FBI.
Regards, Barbara Kauffman
Law Offices of Barbara Kauffman
55 Professional Center Pkwy., Suite M
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 491-1159
_____
From: Barone, Reina [mailto:RBarone@co.marin.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:05 AM
To: Kauffmanlaw@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Payroll Information
Good Morning Ms. Kauffman:
It was nice speaking with you this morning. Per your request I am sending
you an email with the contact name and number for Marin County Superior
Court payroll information:
Marin County Superior Court Payroll Department
Contact: Scott Besede
Phone #: 415-473-2674
Also please find attached, correspondence from the Marin County Counsel
regarding your request for payroll information.
<>
Thank you,
Reina A. Barone
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
Scott Beseda (Marin’s human resources manager, who apparently told the state auditor that Marin Family Court Services personnel comply with state mandated complaint procedures), and Kim Turner (who, with Marin Presiding Judge Boren are presently assuring the public on the Marin court’s website that the state auditor has confirmed “beyond any doubt” that there is “no problem” in Marin), were provided with the following 5/10/07 letter and subsequent 5/21/07 sworn testimony of Marin Family Court services personnel. The letter is intact except the last three digits of the case number have been asterisked.
May 10, 2007
Judge Lynn Duryee Kim Turner
Presiding Judge Court Executive Officer
Marin County Superior Court 3501 Civic Center Drive
3501 Civic Center Drive Room 116
San Rafael, CA 94903 San Rafael, CA 94903
RE: Discipline/Removal of Family Court Services
Mediator Gloria Wu
Dear Judge Duryee and Ms. Turner:
I am writing to inquire as to whether the Court took any steps to discipline or reprimand Family Court Services mediator Dr. Gloria Wu following a) her perjured trial testimony given in the Spring of 2006, in Case No. FL 995***, and b) her failure to follow the dictates of the California Rules of Court in the performance of her duties in that case.
I refer you to the California Rules of Court and trial testimony excerpts of Gloria Wu filed in Case No. FL 995*** on March 9, 2007, as well as the trial testimony excerpts of the father filed March 9, 2007.
In November 2005 Dr. Wu made a recommendation to the court for a change of custody, without ever reading the mother’s pleadings in response to the father’s custody motion. Wu lied under penalty of perjury about this on the witness stand, waiting until her third day of cross-examination to admit she hadn’t read the file. Among other things she failed to follow up on reports by the child that his father hit him, or question the father about whether and how often the child had been exposed to pornography while in the father’s care.
The Court rejected Dr. Wu’s recommendations.
Father filed another motion re custody in early 2007. Despite her past actions, Dr. Wu was again assigned to mediate Case No. FL 995***. The mother received a notice of a mediation date (for a date 4 days past the scheduled custody hearing), and told Dr. Wu she was unavailable. She asked Dr. Wu to remove herself from the case given her past performance; Dr. Wu failed to respond. FCS supervisor Leo Terbeiten was thereafter e-mailed the complaint of the mother and within 3 hours–clearly without sufficient time to review the voluminous file in this case, and while Dr. Wu was on vacation and apparently unavailable for consultation with the mother or Mr. Terbeiten as required by local rules–he denied her request for change of mediator via a form letter that was completely unresponsive to the mother’s detailed and specific concerns. All of that appears to be contrary to the Mediator Complaint Procedure set forth in the Marin County local rules. Terbeiten failed to answer follow-up inquiries from me about his investigation of the case, intended procedure, and whether Family Court Services planned to re-schedule a meeting with the mother.
Mother was obliged to file a motion to remove Dr. Wu to halt her involvement. Nonetheless, immediately after the motion was filed and served on FCS, Wu proceeded to meet with the parties’ child. FCS never answered the inquiries about whether there would be a re-scheduled interview between FCS and mother, and instead, while the motion for Wu’s removal was pending, Wu issued a truly bizarre and punitive recommendation, recommending that the child have only supervised visits with his mother. She did this although as the file, mother’s pleadings and the father’s trial testimony reveal, there is a history of domestic violence in this case (a multi-year CLETS restraining order was issued against the father at the commencement of dissolution proceedings, and the child reported to the police, the court, the mother and his attorney that the father told the child his mother would “die” or “be killed” in October 2006); the father has repeatedly allowed the child access to graphic pornography and inappropriate video games and movies while the child is in his care—and most recently sent the child two inappropriate video clips which had a porn website address plastered across them; the father has steadfastly refused to follow the medical advice of the child’s allergist in violation of court orders; and much, much more. As a result of the father’s behavior the court gave the mother the decisionmaking power with respect to most of the child’s medical and educational issues.
None of this is mentioned in Wu’s recommendations, except the two video clips e-mailed by the mother directly to Wu. In other words, it appears that once again Dr. Wu didn’t read the file. I refer you to the responsive pleadings of the mother filed April 9, 2007; the Motion for change of custody and supporting pleadings filed by mother on April 26, 2007; and the Motion to remove Dr. Wu from this case filed May 1, 2007. In Wu’s recommendation, dated May 8, 2007, she says only that “father has filed another motion for a modification in the custody orders”.
Dr. Wu makes no mention in her blistering “recommendation” of any of the pleadings filed by Mother in the past year, including Mother’s own motion to change custody and remove the child’s attorney for cause filed April 26, 2007–except the motion to remove Dr. Wu. She recommends therapy for the mother, never mentioning—and apparently oblivious to the fact that– both mother and the child are already in trauma therapy due to the October 2006 death threat. She mentions talking to the school counselor, but makes no mention of any attempt to contact the child’s trauma therapist, who would clearly have volumes to say about what is going on in this family.
The Court clerk took an extra copy of mother’s motion to change custody from me personally on April 26, 2007 “for family court services” and after my inquiry about this, gave me the new rule (stapled on the old mediation notice) with respect to providing copies of pleadings to Family Court Services. One would conclude that the reasoning behind asking for extra pleadings was the assumption that the mediator would read, consider and address them.
This clearly didn’t happen—again.
What in the world is going on up there at the Court? Why is FCS running amok, apparently with impunity? Why is Dr. Wu still employed there, after perjuring herself and making a custody recommendation without ever reading the pleadings of one parent?
I am transmitting herewith a copy of the California Rules of Court with respect to the Court’s duty to ensure that mediators are impartial, competent and uphold the standards of practice contained in the rules of court, and a copy of the local rule with respect to the mediation complaint procedure.
It appears that every rule in the proverbial book has been broken. Repeatedly.
My guess is that Dr. Wu wasn’t reprimanded in any way by the County for her prior performance in this case, and therefore she felt she could repeat her behavior with impunity. Thus my question—was she reprimanded?
In any event, I do expect that now that you are indisputably aware of what has transpired with Wu, you will take the appropriate steps to ensure that Family Court Services supervisors and personnel follow the law, and your own local rules.
In the interim, I am requesting an immediate retraction of the recommendation of Dr. Wu, and the immediate removal of that recommendation from the file.
Very truly yours,
BARBARA A. KAUFFMAN
CC: Judicial oversight bodies and elected California officials.
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
The above addresses for the 5/10.07 letter got garbled– they were sent to then-presiding Judge Lynn Duryee and Court Executive Officer (and current Judicial Councilmember) Kim Turner.
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
Interesting Relevant State-Mandated Laws and Procedures ( from the California Rules of Court 5.210 and 5.215)– Regulating Family Court Services Mediation Protocol
(excerpts selected for purposes of this discussion — more to follow later)
Rule 5.210. Court-connected child custody mediation
(a) Authority
This rule of court is adopted under article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution and Family Code sections 211, 3160, and 3162(a).
(b) Purpose
This rule sets forth standards of practice and administration for court-connected child custody mediation services that are consistent with the requirements of Family Code section 3161.
(c) Definitions
(1)”Best interest of the child” is defined in Family Code section 3011.
(d) Responsibility for mediation services
(1) Each court must ensure that:
(A) Mediators are impartial, competent, and uphold the standards of practice contained in this rule of court.
(B) Mediation services and case management procedures implement state law and allow sufficient time for parties to receive orientation, participate fully in mediation, and develop a comprehensive parenting plan without unduly compromising each party’s right to due process and a timely resolution of the issues.
(C) Mediation services demonstrate accountability by:
(i) Providing for acceptance of and response to complaints about a mediator’s performance
e) Mediation process
All court-connected mediation processes must be conducted in accordance with state law and include:
(1) Review of the intake form and court file, if available, before the start of mediation
h) Ethics
Mediation must be conducted in an atmosphere that encourages trust in the process and a perception of fairness. To that end, mediators must:
(1) Meet the practice and ethical standards of the Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California and of related law;
(2) Maintain objectivity, provide and gather balanced information for both parties, and control for bias
Rule 5.215. Domestic violence protocol for Family Court Services
(a) Authority
This rule of court is adopted under Family Code sections 211, 1850(a), and 3170(b).
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) Purpose
This rule sets forth the protocol for Family Court Services’ handling of domestic violence cases consistent with the requirement of Family Code section 3170(b).
(e) Intake
(1) Court responsibility
Each court must ensure that Family Court Services programs use a detailed intake process that screens for, and informs staff about, any restraining orders, dependency petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, and other safety-related issues affecting any party or child named in the proceedings.
(2) Intake form
Any intake form that an agency charged with providing family court services requires the parties to complete before the commencement of mediation or evaluation must state that, if a party alleging domestic violence in a written declaration under penalty of perjury or a party protected by a protective order so requests, the Family Court Services staff must meet with the parties separately and at separate times.
(3) Review of intake form and case file
All Family Court Services procedures must be conducted in accordance with state law and must include review of intake forms and court files, when available, by appropriate staff.
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
Some of the Bureau of State Audit Concerns about Marin Family Court Services:
Audit Report page 41:
The staff in the Marin FCS perform only child custody and visitation
mediations. We found that the Marin FCS could not demonstrate to us that
five of its seven mediators met the minimum qualifications necessary to
perform mediations in family law matters. In addition, the Marin FCS could
not demonstrate that four of the seven mediators we reviewed completed the
initial 40‑hour custody and visitation training or the initial 16‑hour
advanced domestic violence training.
Audit Report page 42-43:
The former FCS manager’s last day of employment with the court was December
30, 2009. As of December 2010 the Marin Superior Court had not replaced the
former FCS manager. Instead, because of funding limitations, the court
assigned the administrative aspects of the former FCS manager’s duties to
its human resources manager. However, according to the executive officer,
the human resources manager is not qualified to perform clinical supervision
of the three FCS mediators. Consequently, since December 31, 2009, the three
FCS mediators have not met the training requirement of participating in
performance supervision because they are no longer meeting with a supervisor
who possesses the necessary experience every two weeks to discuss their
individual cases.
Audit Report page 43-44:
The Marin Superior Court’s Personnel Plan and Policies also includes a
policy titled “Discipline and Discharge.” According to the policy, the court
may initiate disciplinary measures when an employee engages in misconduct or
when job performance is unsatisfactory in the judgment of the responsible
supervisors. Examples of misconduct or performance deficiencies include
insubordination, unsatisfactory work quality, and falsification of an entry
on a court document such as a time card or expense report. The policy states
that before the court discharges the employee, disciplinary actions will
usually follow a progressive discipline pattern, including one or more oral
or written warnings, and/or suspension. The procedure for major discipline
resulting in suspension without pay for more than five days, a demotion or
reduction in pay, or discharge requires the court to give the employee a
written notice of the proposed disciplinary action. The notice must include
information such as the proposed action, the basis for the charge, and a
statement informing the employee of the right to respond by a certain date.
The Marin Superior Court’s executive officer stated that the court did not
seek disciplinary action against any FCS mediators or the former FCS manager
during the period that we audited.
Audit report, page 51:
Both the Sacramento County Superior Court’s Family and Children department
(Sacramento family court) and the Marin County Superior Court’s Family Court
department (Marin family court) have a process for reviewing and resolving
complaints about their Office of Family Court Services (FCS) mediators.
Because neither court kept a log, they could not assure us of the total
number of complaints they received during the four‑year period that we
audited. However, our review of a sample of the complaints of which we are
aware revealed that the Sacramento FCS did not always follow its established
process. In addition, the former manager for the Marin FCS failed to
document whether or not he consulted with the mediators during the
investigation of the complaints we reviewed. As a result, the Sacramento
family court cannot ensure that it promptly reviews and responds to all
complaints it receives regarding FCS mediators, and the Marin family court
cannot ensure that it thoroughly investigates its FCS mediator complaints.
Audit report page 88:
AUDITOR RECOMMENDATION 9: Ensure FCS follows the court’s
established complaint process, including retaining the appropriate
documentation to demonstrate adherence to the process.
MARIN COURT RESPONSE: Agree, as to the recommendation to document adherence to the complaint handling process – To document that all required steps are
followed, in accordance with Marin County Superior Court Local Rule 6.32(M),
the court has developed a mediator complaint tracking form, which will be
completed by the human resources manager while investigating the complaint.
The complaint tracking form will be attached to the written complaint or to
the notes pertaining to a verbal complaint and will be retained in the FCS
complaint file for mediators.
The audit report states that complaint handling was done “inconsistently”, although there are no examples of inconsistent treatment of complaints. The court disagrees with this characterization. While the tracking form above provides improved
documentation of adherence to the complaint procedure, it should be noted
that it does not change the manner in which such investigations will be
conducted. In the course of the audit, the audit team discussed with the
human resources manager and the mediators themselves the current practice
for investigating complaints about mediators. All agreed that the
investigator always carefully reviewed the complaint itself, consulted with
the mediators, reviewed the case file and relevant documents, and
communicated the findings back to the complainant. The advent of this new
form will not improve upon the existing practices in FCS for the handling of
mediator complaints; it will simply document the existing process.
Audit report page 106 (Reply to Marin Response to Audit Recommendation):
The Marin Superior Court’s statement that “all agreed that the investigator
always carefully reviewed the complaint itself, consulted with the
mediators, reviewed the case file and relevant documents, and communicated
the findings back to the complainant” is incorrect. Specifically, as we
state on pages 54 and 55, the human resources manager stated that he spoke
with the three FCS mediators currently on staff, and they confirmed that as
part of the investigation process, it was the former FCS manager’s practice
to consult verbally with the mediators regarding each complaint. The human
resources manager also stated that the FCS mediators recalled being
consulted on seven of the eight cases. Further, the human resources manager
stated that, because there is no requirement in the local rules, the former
FCS manager was not obligated to document the fact that he consulted with
the mediators as part of the complaint investigation process. At the exit
conference held on December 9, 2010, we informed the court that the human
resources manager’s statements were not sufficient evidence to demonstrate
that complaints are thoroughly investigated. The standards we follow require
us to obtain evidence that is appropriate and defines appropriateness as the
measure of the quality of evidence that encompasses the relevance, validity,
and reliability of the evidence used for addressing the audit objective and
supporting audit findings and conclusions. The standards provide examples of
the different types and sources of evidence that auditors may use. The
statements made by the human resources manager would be considered
testimonial evidence. For this type of evidence, the standards indicate that
testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is not biased and has
direct knowledge about the area is generally more reliable than testimonial
evidence obtained from an individual who is biased or has indirect or
partial knowledge about the area. In our professional judgment, the current
human resources manager has a greater likelihood of being biased toward the
outcome of our audit finding and conclusion and had indirect or partial
knowledge about the complaint process because he assumed administrative
responsibility for the Marin FCS in January 2010.
(BIG FAT NOTE TO READERS: The auditor’s concern about the
reliability of the Marin “human resources manager’s” (Scott Beseda’s) statements
was well-placed. In September 2007 the 5/10/07 letter and 5/21/07 transcript
of Marin Family Court Personnel testimony admitting to the lack of knowledge of and compliance with State-mandated family court mediation protocol had been sent to Scott Beseda — who nonetheless apparently assured the state auditors that Marin County Family Court Services complaint procedures were being followed. )
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
Did longtime Marin Family Court Services Supervisor Leo Terbieten (who “supervised” Marin recommending Family Court Services mediators, and who “retired” in December 2010 immediately after taking part in the mass destruction of Family Court Services mediation files while the audit was pending) know and follow state mandated family court services mediation protocol (CRC 5.210 and 5.215) cited above? You decide.
5/21/07 testimony of Former Marin Family Court Services supervisor Leo Terbieten in Marin Family Law Case NO. FL995***
Pages 17-18
Ms. Kauffman: And do you take continuing education?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you describe that for me?
A. I’m required to take continuing education that the State provides through the Administrative Office of the Court. And in addition, I take other classes related to psychology and child development.
Q. Do you need to take any additional classes by virtue of the fact that you’re Manager of Family Court Services?
A. We’re required to take additional domestic violence courses. There’s more training that we are required to take, yes.
Page 22 (referring to FCS court mediators—see CA Rules of court 5.210, 5.215)
Q. But as a general rule, they [FCS mediators] do review the court file?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that part of the protocol, that they review the court file?
A. No, but it’s general practice.
Q. In a case of — where there’s domestic violence involved, is there more of a protocol to review the court file?
A. Not necessarily.
Page 24
Q. Okay. Now, are you aware of any cases where the mediator did not review the file before issuing a recommendation?
A. No.
Q. Well, what about this case?
A. I don’t know.
Page 30-32 (on the requirement to confer with the mediator about a complaint)
Q. Okay. So how much time did you spend on the issue when — well, let’s just take a look. You received — on April 16th, you received [Mother’s] complaint, correct?
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. And after you received that complaint, what did you do?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Well, do you recall that we had a telephone conversation, you and I?
A. We’ve had several telephone conversations.
Q. Do you recall that I told you that Dr. Wu hadn’t responded to {Mother’s] complaint?
A. I don’t.
Q. Did you talk to Dr. Wu after — on the day that you got the complaint from me?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Do you recall whether or not Dr. Wu was on vacation on that day?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Well, if she was on vacation, you wouldn’t have been able to talk to her; would you?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, doesn’t the local rule require — this is mediator complaint procedure, “The supervisor will conduct an investigation of the matter, including consultation with the mediator.” You’re aware of that requirement, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So the complaint was filed, and after the complaint was filed, you didn’t consult with her before you wrote your letter; did you?
A. I consulted with — not at that particular time, but I consulted with Dr. Wu immediately after the instant motion was filed. I’ve consulted with Dr. Wu on the case from 2005 forward. The entire staff has consulted with Dr. Wu on this case from 2005 forward. I felt like I had more than enough information to make my decision. I didn’t feel it was necessary.
Q. Okay. So you didn’t follow the rule of consulting with her after you got the complaint?
A. No, I consulted with her before I got the complaint, so I had the information I needed to respond to the complaint.
Q. Did you know before you got the complaint that [mother] had made the complaint?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Wu didn’t tell you about it?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Okay. So you sent basically a form letter; didn’t you?
A. No.
Q. Pardon me?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. So you crafted that —
A. Are you referring to the letter denying recusal of Dr. Wu?
Q. Yes, I am.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. So you crafted that letter specific to this case?
A. That’s the letter I send out, right.
Q. Okay. I would like you to briefly summarize for me the concerns in the complaint of — [Mother’s] complaint about Dr. Wu.
A. I don’t recall all the complaints that she had.
Page 35
Q. Okay. Now, you’re aware that one of [mother’s] complaints was that she had not read the file before making a recommendation. Are you aware of that?
A. If you say so.
Q. Are you aware of that —
A. I’m not.
Q. — Mr. Terbieten?
A. I’m not.
Q. So as you sit here today, you’re not aware that that was one of the complaints [mother] made?
A. It sounds — it sounds familiar so — you know, I’m not saying it’s not one of her complaints.
Page 37 (re domestic violence protocol for FCS mediators)
MS. KAUFFMAN: Q. Okay. Well, are you aware of California Rule of Court, Rule 5.215?
A. No.
Q. Okay. That’s the domestic violence protocol for Family Court Services. And since you’re not aware of that, I’m going to go ahead and give you some of the law I’m going
to be referring here to you. I didn’t have time to makecopies, but I’m going to show everybody.
Page 41
MS. KAUFFMAN: Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether this case involves domestic violence?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know when the last emergency protective order was issued in this case?
A. No.
Q. Do you know when the first CLETS restraining order was issued in this case?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with Dr. Wu whether this case involved domestic violence?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did she say?
A. I don’t recall.
Page 57-58
Ms. Kauffman: Well, after the complaint was filed, I asked you what the procedure was going to be, and you didn’t respond; do you recall that?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, “All Court connected mediation processes must be conducted in accordance with state law and include review of the intake form and court file.” That’s on page 2. Do you want to take a look at that?
A. I believe you.
Q. Okay. So that means that Gloria Wu is bound, isn’t she, to review the court file?
A. I think it’s a good idea.
Q. Well, isn’t that what the rule says?
A. If you say so.
Q. Okay. Now, if Gloria Wu did not follow that rule, would you be concerned?
A. Depending on the case, I could be.
Q. Okay. But in some cases, you wouldn’t be concerned if she didn’t follow this rule?
A. Well, again, it’s a case by case thing. I’d be surprised if she didn’t look at the case file. I mean, you’re — you’re assuming that she didn’t look at the case file, and I don’t know that that’s the case.
Q. Now, you vouched in your letter for Dr. Gloria Wu, and you said you’d worked with her before. You were aware, weren’t you, that there were other cases where there was concern about her not listening to one side of the story? You were aware of that, right?
MR. OSTILLER: I’m going to object, what’s the relevance of that?
MS. KAUFFMAN: Well, he said —
JUDGE ADAMS: Wait, wait. Excuse me, there’s an objection, I’m going to rule on it. This is cross-examination, I will let Miss Kauffman ask that question. You can answer it, Mr. Terbieten. Are you aware there are other cases where there was a complaint that Dr. Wu hadn’t listened to both sides of the story?
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall specifically. The mediators do get complaints, and I — I don’t recall if that was a specific complaint.
Page 59-60 (regarding the concern that the FCS mediator was biased)
MS. KAUFFMAN: Q. Now, what did you do in this case to assure that Dr. Wu wasn’t acting with personal bias after she had been — after a complaint had been filed?
A. I had no reason to think that she would be.
Q. Did you ask her?
A. Why would I ask somebody that? Why would you go into somebody’s office and say, “Are you, you know, doing a crummy job on this case? Are you not acting in the child’s best interests,” when I’ve worked with this person for 10 years, and I know that that’s what they do, that they act in the kid’s best interests?
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
How about controversial Marin Family Court Services mediator “Doctor” Gloria Wu? Does she know what she is doing? Does she follow the law? Does the Marin Court care? Let’s see. You decide. Keep in mind the excerpts from CRC 5.210 and 5.215 above.
Below is is an excerpt from the 5/21/07 cross examination of Marin Family Court Services mediator Gloria Wu, describing how complaints are handled by Marin Family Court Services. Note that Dr. Wu and the Court are being represented by Kimberly Drake of the Meyers Nave law firm, and that firm is presumably paid by the California taxpayers to defend Wu and the court. (Query, did that law firm, that has personal knowledge of the facts, review the Judge Boren/Kim Turner “Marin Voice” smackfest posted on the Marin Superior Court website, to make sure the court was not purposefully misleading the public and improperly attacking the legislature and the auditor, CJE, and “one vocal family law attorney”.)
Ms. Kauffman: Okay. After you received [mother’s] March 29th, 2007 email, did you take any steps to contact [mother] to talk about it?
Dr. Wu: No. Again, if the request has been made for a new mediator, that’s — that’s handled through my manager.
Question: Excuse me. Are you —
Dr. Wu: It’s not part of our normal process to contact the clients and discuss that issue with them.
Question: Are you aware of the local rule procedure for handling complaints against mediators?
Dr. Wu: I’m really not familiar with that in detail.
Question: Do you know that [mother] was supposed to — I’m gonna — I’m gonna refer you to it in just a minute. Could we get Exhibit A for Dr. Wu?
Judge Adams: Doctor, I’m handing you Respondent’s Exhibit A, which is stapled together, a collection of various state rules, statutes, and local rules.
Question: I’d like you to turn to page 6 of that packet, please.
Dr. Wu: Okay.
Question: Do you see there, it says “Mediator complaint procedure”?
Dr. Wu: Yes.
Question: Have you ever read that before? Take a moment, and — please, and go ahead and look at it.
Dr. Wu: Okay. And your question is, have I read this before?
Question: Yes.
Dr. Wu: I’m sure I have come across it, I — I don’t recall, you know, reading it in this much detail but — .
Question: Well, in your capacity as a mediator, have you discussed with your supervisor how mediation complaints are handled in Marin County?
Dr. Wu: I’m not sure I understand the question, have I discussed how they’re handled?
Question: M-hm, in Marin County. The med — the complaint procedure, have you discussed it with your supervisor?
Dr. Wu: Not that I’m aware of, not — not the actual details of how it’s handled. Again, if I receive a complaint, I simply direct that to my — my manager and he — that’s his responsibility at that point to — to address the issues.
Question: Okay. Well, do you see that it says here, “The complainant” — under mediation complaint procedure, it says “The complainant shall attempt to resolve the matter with the mediator before pursuing it as provided in this rule, and then if the matter is not resolved, the complainant must register the complaint verbally or in writing with the supervisor of Family Court Services.” Now, when you received — were you aware of the requirement of [mother] to try to resolve it with you first?
Dr. Wu: No. I mean, that’s not how I was — that’s not my understanding of how we handled it in our office.
Question: Okay. So you didn’t try to contact her after you —
Dr. Wu: No —
Question: — got the —
Dr. Wu: — because, as I said, it’s not been our practice to be directly involved in that process as the mediator.
Question: Is there any manual or any kind of directive that the mediators are given for how to handle complaints in Family Court Services?
Dr. Wu: Not that I’m aware of.
Question: And you said that you had looked at this rule before. Did you look in the local rules after getting [mother’s] email to see what you should do?
MS. DRAKE: Objection, misstates testimony.
Judge Adams: Sustained.
Question: Maybe I misunderstood, I thought you said you had looked at it before, the rule?
Dr. Wu: I’m sure I’ve looked through this at some point in time, but, again, I — you know, I don’t know this in detail, this is —
Q. So when [Mother’s] complaint came in, did you look at the local rules to see what you should do?
Dr. Wu: No.”
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
More from the 5/21/07 testimony of Marin Family Court Services “Doctor” Wu:
“Ms. Kauffman: This is Rule 5.210.
Judge Adams: Thank you. All right. Go ahead. I was on the wrong page.
Ms. Kauffman: And it’s D1C, little i. Okay. “Mediation services demonstrate accountability by providing for acceptance and response to complaints about a mediator’s performance.” Now, who did you think — are you familiar with this rule, 5.210?
Dr. Wu: No, not in detail.
Ms. Kauffman: Okay. When was the last time you read it?
MS. DRAKE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
Ms. Kauffman: Have you ever read through the rule?
Judge Adams: Overruled.
Dr. Wu: Again, I may have glanced through it, but I don’t know this in detail.
Question: Okay. How about page 7 of this packet?
Judge Adams: Rule?
MS. KAUFFMAN: Rule 5.215.
Judge Adams: Thank you.
Ms. Kauffman: Have you read through Rule 5.215? And I don’t mean right now —
Dr. Wu: Uh-huh.
Ms. Kauffman: — I mean before right now?
Dr. Wu: Well, I’m trying to give you an answer.
Ms. Kauffman: Does it look familiar to you?
Dr. Wu: Yes, it looks familiar.
Ms. Kauffman: When was the last time you read it before today?
Dr. Wu: I don’t recall.
Ms. Kauffman: Was it in the last year?
Dr. Wu: Again, I — I don’t know.
[A FEW SENTENCES LATER]
Ms. Kauffman: Do you follow — do you make it a practice to follow the California Rules of Court?
Dr. Wu: You know, my understanding is that this applies more for — you know, to the Court. In terms of our recommendations, is that what you’re asking me? Like, do I go through each and every single one of these when I make my recommendation or —
Ms. Kauffman: Well, let me ask you —
Dr. Wu: Uh-huh.
Ms. Kauffman: Let me just put this a different way. Where do you believe the standards are set forth for your practice as a Family Court mediator, in what code section would I find the standards of practice for you?
Dr. Wu: Okay. I’m unable to answer that question, I don’t know.
[LATER IN THE CROSS]
Ms. Kauffman: Do you believe, Dr. Wu, that you have followed the Rules of Court in carrying out your duties in this case?
MS. DRAKE: Objection, vague and ambiguous.
Judge Adams: Overruled.
Dr. Wu: Well, I believe —
Judge Adams: Well, I assume you mean the pertinent Rules of Court?
Ms. Kauffman: Exactly.
Judge Adams: Okay.
Dr. Wu: Well, I believe that I’ve attempted to try to do the best that I can here on this case.
MS. KAUFFMAN: That’s not really the answer –an answer to the question. Do you believe you followed the Rules of Court applicable to mediators in exercising your duties in this case?
Dr. Wu: Well, again, that’s — that’s a difficult question for me to answer because some of these rules, if they’re not part of the way that we normally practice, you know, I may not be in compliance with these specifics here, but this is how we normally practice mediation in our office.
MS. KAUFFMAN: Okay. No further questions, your Honor.
[a few sentences later]
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LUEDERS [minor’s counsel]:
Question: Dr. Wu, has the method and procedure you used in working on this case been consistent with the method and procedure you use in all your cases that you get assigned?
Dr. Wu: Yes.”
JusticeCalifornia
February 2, 2011
And I have saved the best for last (for purposes of this discussion). In making a custody recommendation, the mediators are required to take into consideration the “best interests of the child” factors. And, in making a custody order, the courts are required to apply the same “best interests of the child” factors. These factors are set forth in Family Code section 3011.
Remember, that was referred to in the state mandated mediation protocol set forth in CRC 5.210 (c)(1) : ‘”Best interest of the child’ is defined in Family Code section 3011. ”
Here is August 2007 TRIAL TESTIMONY from “Doctor” Wu, after Judge Adams denied mom’s 5/21/07 request for a new mediator who knew and followed state law:
Page 187
Ms. Kauffman: Okay. And in how many cases in the last six months have you been called to be cross-examined on a recommendation of yours?
Dr. Wu: I believe only on this case. There — there was one that — earlier this year, I don’t know when that happened, but, again, it — it could have been within the last six
months or within the last year.
Q. Possibly —
A. Basically within the last year, I’ve only been called to testify I believe one other time other than on this case.
Q. And in that particular case, were you asked to recite the best interest factors in Family Code Section 3011?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Could you tell me what the best interest factors are in Family Code Section 3011?
A. No, I’m unable to do that for you.
PAGE 215 (after lunch):
Q. Okay. And I asked you before if you were familiar with Family Code Section 3011, which talks about the best interests of the child. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were not familiar with that. Have you had a chance to take a look at it over the noon hour?
A. I was having my lunch, I didn’t do anything over the noon hour.
PAGE 327-328
Q. Okay. Now, has anyone reprimanded you for the way you’ve handled this case?
Mr. Ostiller: Objection, asked and answered last time.
Judge Adams: Overruled. You can answer.
Dr. Wu: No.
Ms. Kauffman: Q. Has anyone suggested that it was substandard in any way?
Judge Adams: Other than you, Miss Kauffman?
Ms. Kauffman: Right.
Dr. Wu: No.
JusticeCalifornia
February 3, 2011
At your leisure, re-read the above posts re state mandated mediation protocol, the 5/10/2007 letter to the court regarding Marin Family Court Services failure to follow state law and complaint procedures and whether any reprimand had been imposed; the state auditor findings and concerns; the apparent misstatements of the Marin court and Human Resources manager Scott Beseda to the state auditor about compliance with complaint procedures; the testimony of the Marin Family Court Services mediators themselves (and that ain’t no disgruntled litigant he-said, she said, that is straight from Marin Family Court employees)– and then, read what Presiding Judge Boren, and Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner, currently have written and posted on the Marin Superior Court website:
“FOLLOWING a decade of criticism of Marin’s Family Court by a small, but well-financed, group of critics, in 2009 state Sen. Mark Leno asked the Legislature to direct the Bureau of State Audits to investigate claims of poor performance, cronyism and willful misconduct on the part of Marin judges and court professionals.
Stating that the audit would help him to learn more about how family law matters are handled in Marin, on Feb. 25, 2009, Sen. Leno told the IJ, “If there’s no problem, there’s no problem. ”
Well, Sen. Leno, there’s no problem.
This independent audit proves that point beyond any doubt.”. . .
“Family court critics have been recklessly — and falsely — accusing the court, its judges and other court staff of gross malfeasance and worse, for years. Their goal has been to destroy the public trust in our courts.”
Really Judge Boren? You call the above information proof of “no problem, beyond any doubt”? Aren’t you a seasoned criminal judge? Don’t you know better? And are you really calling all court reform advocates, and parents and children who have suffered through the horrific travesties heaped upon them by the Marin Family court and its “unprofessionals” for almost two decades, (many of whom went to Sacramento to testify in support of the audit) “reckless” liars?
The Marin court has just proven the case against it better than anyone else could have.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 3, 2011
One of the founding posts that created this site says the following:
“Threats to the judiciary come from the judicial branch’s own failure to act, not from dissention in the ranks”
Mr. Boren and Ms. Turner’s op-ed represents yet another threat to the judiciary from within, as is the tadros/doyne case, as is the “Team Jacobs” matter as is CCMS as does SBx211, as is the cardinelli/greer/saldivar matter.
The judicial branch can continue to live in denial while all of this stuff is documented on the internet. When the offenses become egrigous enough and believe me the’re there already, the judicial branch leadership will be listening to calls to step down similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt. These calls are already being made across hundreds of web pages and its my objective to bring all parties together as a unified front of citizens statewide.
To those who don’t believe that the people of the state of California won’t have that much interest in their judicial branch to act, please keep in mind those same people changed the face of the California Supreme Court once already. There is no better reason than injustice, a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability at the hands of the judicial branch to toss judges off the bench en masse than just about any other.
Most importantly it only took 10 internet activists to bring down the government of Egypt.
SF Whistle
February 3, 2011
JCW—-
Your thoughts on how current events in Egypt relate to the denial mentality of the Judicial Branch and the parallels that exist are captured in an article published in the Wall Street Journal on January 15th.:
…………………..”An oft-forgotten truth about dictatorships is how unassailable they appear–right up to the moment they fall”…….
A longer look at the situation today in Egypt causes one to consider that this is the consummate David vs Goliath story. Egypt’s (despot, Mubarek) actually are an outgrowth of events in Tunisia……The genesis of the toppling of dictators was a 26 year old man living in desperation and poverty…..Mohammed Bouazizi was arrested for selling vegetables without a license. His response was the ultimate protest, self-immolation. Days later, following the public outcry and revolt based upon the act of this single individual—-a cruel dictatorship fell…..and now Mubarek’s future is a matter of “when-not-if”…..
The future of California’s Judicial Branch is fast becoming a situation of “when” it will be compelled to eliminate the climate of corruption it has become host to.—–
Reading JusticeCalifornia’s postings is a sickening experience. —-The tragedy suffered by innocent children and the ripping apart of families caused by legal “professionals” can not continue. Reading the way Dr. Wu and Mr. Terbieten respond to questions regarding the harm they have caused leaves no doubt that they have no capacity to understand their conduct. There is no remorse—no acknowledgement of the implications of their acts….Reading that Dr. Wu lacked the smallest measure of concern, no even bothering to trouble herself to review court rules over her lunch. There is a clear smug arrogance to her answers that strikes me as a reliance upon “the system” to support her hidious acts.
It’s time to topple this corrupt dictatorship——I don’t believe that self-immolation is appropriate—I am an advocate of change through initiative—legislation—class action lawsuit—-
Mohammed Bouazizi provides inspiration—-
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 4, 2011
Since its inception just a short time ago, this thread (by leaps and bounds) and the “Letters to the court: Contra Costa” thread have both passed “Kids for Cash” as the most read threads.
JusticeCalifornia
February 4, 2011
According to the e-mail below, sent today, Leo Terbieten — yes the former Marin Family Court Services Supervisor who ran like a bat out of hell after engaging in the mass destruction of Marin Family Court Services documents during the state audit– and whose brilliant testimony about his lack of knowledge of or compliance with state law is set forth in the posts above– is going to be giving the MCBA family law section a lunchtime seminar about child custody mediation. Attendees will be getting MCLE credits.
And also according to the below e-mail, Kris Cirby’s patently false mass-emailed assurance referenced above that “The auditors found no evidence that the court has engaged in any of the conduct alleged by family court critics over the last decade” was NOT made in her capacity as Legal Services Director of the Marin Family and Children’s Law Center as her e-mail indicated. Instead, she has now admitted that this statement was made in her capacity as the co-chair of the Family Law Section of the Marin County Bar Association.
Now THAT is interesting, because over the years certain top leadership members of the MCBA have been made INTIMATELY aware of the problems in the Marin Family Court, but instead of taking action to protect the public, they have taken action to protect the court and further their own personal interests (and y’all know who you are). Perhaps that is why the MCBA top leadership has been so uncharacteristically silent after the audit report was released. Now, come to find out, the MCBA is still defending the court through Ms. Cirby, by having her improperly use her position at the Family and Children’s Law Center. I am going to have to assume that the MCBA authorized Ms. Kirby’s actions. . . .is that right?
I notice that the Marin Voice smackfest is still up on the Marin Superior Court website, so I suppose JusticeCalifornia’s responsive public education efforts will have to continue. First JusticeCalifornia will focus on those in top leadership at the MCBA who knew about the family court travesties but actively (or by omission) covered it up, and then JusticeCalifornia will address, on a broader scale, the culture of cronyism that Judge Boren and Kim Turner have publicly denied. Sigh. Again, this will take a little while to organize, but you won’t be disappointed.
In the meanwhile, below is today’s Kris Cirby e-mail:
“Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Child Custody Mediation
Presented by Leo Terbieten, PhD
12:00 -1:00 pm.
Courtroom H
MCLE available
____________________
The custody committee, chaired by Mary Halbert, meets irregularly to discuss custody issues germane to our courts and court rules, and on an ad hoc basis to meet with bench officers to discuss them. If you have interest in being on the committee, please contact Mary Halbert at mary@maryhalbertlaw.com.
____________________
To clarify, Kris’ January 20, 2011 email forwarding the link to the BSA Final Audit was sent out in her capacity as co-chair of the Family Law Section of the Marin County Bar Association, and not as Legal Services Director of Family & Children’s Law Center.
Kris & Richard”
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 4, 2011
Then she shouldn’t have utilized her family and children’s law center e-mail account to send the message….
SF Whistle
February 4, 2011
JCW–
Ms Cirby’s declaration tells a much larger story—–
It informs the reader that Family and Children’s Law Center will not stand behind and support her efforts to inaccurately characterize the findings of the audit—-as Presiding Judge Boren has so blatantly attempted.
The Family and Children’s Law Center has obviously compelled her to attach her statements to her capacity with the Marin Bar Association—–WOW—This is far more damning!!!! –Now ownership of her activity is shared by the Marin Bar—What do suppose they intend to do with this?—
…..Oh what a tangled web we weave….when first we practice to deceive….(Sir Walter Scott)
JusticeCalifornia
February 4, 2011
Well, I am going to be honest.
JusticeCalifornia does not have any knowledge or reason to believe that the CURRENT MCBA officers– namely Otis Bruce, Jessica Karner, Elizabeth Brekhus, and Joel Gumbiner–have personal knowledge of facts related to Marin Family Court travesties that might have been subject to the state audit report. So if Ms. Cirby acted without their knowledge in sending out that patently false e-mail, she needs to fess up right quick–publicly.
JusticeCalifornia DOES have knowledge and reason to believe that at least 4 of the 5 past MCBA presidents have intimate knowledge putting them on notice that Ms. Cirby’s e-mail is patently false.
They would be:
Beth Jordan (415) 485-9290 bethsjordan@comcast.net
Ed Berberian (415) 499-6450 eberberian@co.marin.ca.us
Jeff Lerman (415) 454-0455 jeff@lermanlaw.com
Len Rifkind (415) 485-2200 len@rifkindlawgroup.com
And, of course, past president Matt White knows a lot about all of this, being the chief court defender for so very long. Matt White (415) 453-1010 matt@mattwhitelaw.com
And although not a past president let’s not forget Renee Chernus. Renee Chernus (415) 455-8081 rchernus@aol.com (sorry Roy and Renee, kiss a pig. . .and you are stuck with it)
Or Dan Harris. Dan Harris (415) 705-5330 Daniel.Harris@doj.ca.gov
Dude, you work for law enforcement and were told about the family court mess and can vouch for that. . .
Regards, JC
SF Whistle
February 5, 2011
I took another look at Ms Cirby’s statements……
Let’s remember her representations of the audit’s findings are:
………”The Bureau of State Audits has concluded it’s audit of the Marin Family Courts. The auditors found no evidence that the court has engaged in any of the conduct alleged by family court critics over the last decade.”…..
Cirby dismisses the BSA’s recommedations as….”pertain to somewhat inconsequential issues”…..
Her statements NOW belong to the Marin Bar—–It will be interesting to see whether the Bar wants to take ownership of this position.
JusticeCalifornia
February 10, 2011
Well, it’s February 9, and Kim Turner and Judge Boren still have that Marin Voice smackfest up on its public website. I have been away for awhile commenting on the “full court press” (every pun intended) being utilized by top leadership of the CA courts to undercut the importance of the state auditor’s scathing report on the AOC’s CCMS project. The massive state efforts make the the Boren/Turner efforts look silly, but very consistent.
Back to the point and my responsive public education efforts. The Marin Bar Association has been terribly quiet about the State Audit, other than Ms. Kris Cirby, who, ostensibly under the auspices of the Family and Children’s Law Center sent out a false e-blast telling everyone the audit found nothing evidencing what court critics have been saying. That was a terrible and lasting disservice to the Family And Children’s Law Center, which was unwittingly tainted with her indiscretion — although after the fact she admitted (under pressure) that she sent the e-mail as a Marin County Bar Association family law committee co-chair. So why didn’t she just come right out and say that in the first place? And why is the Marin Bar so very very silent about the audit results which was focused on Marin Family Court Services misconduct?
Could it be because the MCBA was told all about it, was asked for help, but did nothing about it? Was it because it considers itself a “mutual benefit” association and didn’t want to bit the court hands that feed it? Let’s see.
I am going to post several e-mails, which were part of one trail. It is too long to post all at once, so I will break it down. Those of you who are interested, great, those who are not, just skip it. But I hope bar association officers everywhere consider all of the posts on this thread, and the obligations they undertake when they choose to a) assume leadership positions and b) involve themselves in defending the court. I will post a couple today, a couple tomorrow, etc.
JusticeCalifornia
February 10, 2011
From: Barbara Kauffman
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:44 PM
To: ‘Beth S. Jordan’
Cc: ‘RChernus@aol.com’; ‘Daniel Harris’; ‘Ed Berberian’; ‘Matthew White’;
‘bos@co.marin.ca.us’
Subject: Illegal behavior of Marin Family Court Services/complaint about Verna Adams
Hi Beth, I am following up with you, in my capacity as a member of the Marin County Bar Association, and in your capacity as the Chair of the Family Law Section of the Marin County Bar Association, about the illegal behavior of
Marin Family Court Services.
I am copying this to various members of the bar who have served as liaisons to the bench as well. Please consider this a report and a complaint about Judge Verna Adams and Marin Family Court Services.
It is copied to the Board of Supervisors, as it appears that pursuant to Family Code section 1814, they approve employment of Family Court Services mediators. Please consider this a complaint about Marin Family Court Services.
Beth, I am following up on our prior contact about Marin Family Court Services not following California law (a wide variety of Family Code sections, and most specifically California Rules of Court 5.210 and 5.215 governing mediation standards of practice). My client was forced to go through 13 days of trial before Commissioner Goldfine in 2006 to successfully defend against FCS mediator Dr. Gloria Wu’s first custody recommendation made in violation of California law. She just had to spend five days of trial in August 2007, to defend against Wu’s second illegal recommendation. I am attaching Wu’s 2007 testimony (including her prior May, 2007 testimony, and also her August trial testimony which I just received), showing that every rule in the book was broken.
Nonetheless, Judge Adams issued a tentative ruling and ex parte order adopting Wu’s recommendation that my client lose all physical and legal custody of her child, and that she only have two hours per week of supervised visits. She said in her tentative decision: “Mother contended that Dr. Wu was biased against her and that she failed to follow proper procedures in connection with her work in this case. Those contentions were not sustained by the court.”
I believe, after you read Wu’s testimony, that you will see that this is outrageous, and a clear violation of our court’s duty under CRC 5.210 and the new Elkins case to ensure that Marin court procedures are consistent with state law. Wu didn’t read the court file (required — among a lot of other things– by CRC 5.210 and 5.215) or even my client’s pleadings filed in response to the dad’s motion, or my client’s own custody motion filed April 26, 2007, before issuing her May 2007 recommendation–the
recommendation adopted by Adams. Wu was unfamiliar with the police, domestic violence, medical, dental, therapeutic and educational records and history in this case–although ALL of those records were discussed in and attached to my client’s motion. Neither she nor minor’s counsel (Scott Lueders) contacted the police, the child’s teachers, trauma therapist, or doctors before recommending that mother be stripped of custody. Scott Lueders fed Dr. Wu false information about the child’s progress in school, which Dr. Wu relied upon, rather than reading the child’s report cards attached to my client’s motion. Of course, I am taking all appropriate legal steps to correct this for my client, but recognize that every single family going through Marin Family Court Services is at risk. As you can see from Dr. Wu’s testimony, she didn’t even know the components of the “best interests” test of Family Code section 3011, although FCS and the court are bound to follow that test, and Wu had been cross-examined on it earlier this year.
My client was deprived of her child, immediately upon issuance of Adams’ “tentative decision/ex parte order”, without the chance to talk to him or say good-bye. She is clearly not alone. As you can see from Wu’s testimony, she can’t even count in how many cases this radical type of recommendation has been made by her. I myself have talked to several lawyers who have received similar recommendations from FCS. No wonder. FCS personnel aren’t reading the files and don’t know the facts or the law.
(As an aside, I will tell you that Adams’ finding that Wu did not violate state and local procedure is not the only patently bizarre finding she made. After reading her findings, and observing her recent behavior in court, I have very real concerns about her mental/psychological state and courtroom demeanor. I do not know if I am the first to report this –I know I am not alone in my concerns– but if so, so be it.)
I don’t want and certainly am not asking you to give an opinion on the merits of my case, but I do expect you, as chair of the family law section, to be concerned about the behavior of our mediation department, and also our family law bench, to the extent neither of them are following the law. This case makes it clear that NONE of us can send our clients to Marin Family Court Services mediation — or Verna Adams’ court– and expect that the law will be followed. That is serious.
Stories about our courts are now featured in nationally-known academic books on problematic family courts. This should be an embarrassment to the honest, dedicated members of our bench, bar, and administration.
Please let me know what you have done/intend to do about this, as the chair of our section.
Barbara Kauffman
JusticeCalifornia
February 10, 2011
From: Barbara Kauffman
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:11 PM
To: ‘Beth S. Jordan’
Cc: RChernus@aol.com; ‘Matthew White’; ‘Ed Berberian’;
bos@co.marin.ca.us; ‘Daniel Harris’
Subject: FW: Payroll Information
Hi Beth, I am again writing to you in my capacity as a member of the Marin County Bar Association, and in your capacity as chair of the Family Law Section of the Marin County Bar Association. I am forwarding to you prior correspondence (the e-mail below, and the referenced attached documents) sent to the court and county regarding my attempts, in the last 4 months, to obtain information about county and court payments to minor’s counsel and Family Court Services personnel.
I am copying this to MCBA members who have served as liaisons to the bench, and invite them to forward this to other MCBA members who may be dealing with complaints about the court. Please consider this a second complaint about our court.
I am also copying this to the Board of Supervisors, as, again, it appears that pursuant to Family Code section 1814 (b) and (c) the Board approves the hiring of certain Family Court Services personnel.(I do invite the BOS to correct me if I am wrong.)
My concerns, set forth in the e-mail below, are about unsatisfied requests for information about court or county payments made to Family Court Services employees Gloria Wu and Leo Terbeiten, and three individuals who serve as court-appointed minor’s counsel. I have been asking the Court for some of this information for months. Those requests have gone unanswered. Today I learned from county counsel, Jack Govi, that the Court is not authorizing release of any of the information I have requested. I am attaching Mr. Govi’s letter (The other attachments were sent with my original e-mail.)
We know from the $650,000+ John Montgomery scandal where the lack of public oversight about court spending has led our courts. I believe our court, which enjoys incredible independence from oversight, must in some fashion be held fiscally accountable for its actions. The actions in this instance may include payments to individuals who may be overcharging the court and/or not performing their jobs consistent with State law, and the issuance of blanket orders in a multitude of family law cases, without hearings, suddenly allowing minor’s counsel to charge parents four or five times what they were charging the county/court. (I exclude Judy Cohen and Mary Halbert from this category, as I am presently simply interested in knowing how much they have been paid by the court as minor’s counsel compared to Mr. Lueders, and whether Judge Duryee made blanket orders in their cases in or about February 2005, without hearings, allowing them to quadruple their billing rates and bill the parents, as she appears to have done with Scott Lueders. At this time I have no personal knowledge of any misconduct in this regard on their part, although I am aware that there have been prior allegations about Mary Halbert getting illegal court orders that child support be paid directly to her to satisfy her fee requests.)
I would also like to make clear that the auditor/controller’s office is not the target of my concern. My concerns lie with the court, which appears to be doggedly blocking the dissemination of the information I have requested.
Please let me know how you propose to address these issues, which are of potential concern and relevance to all Marin lawyers and litigants who have had to deal with Marin Family Court Services and court-appointed minor’s counsel.
Barbara Kauffman
JusticeCalifornia
February 10, 2011
From: Beth S. Jordan [mailto:bethsjordan@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:04 AM
To: ‘Barbara Kauffman’
Cc: RChernus@aol.com; ‘Matthew White’; ‘Ed Berberian’;
bos@co.marin.ca.us; ‘Daniel Harris’
Subject: RE: Payroll Information
Barbara: As co-chair of the family law section, I certainly have no authority to address your complaints about the courts, Family Mediation Services, or individual attorneys. I do not believe the issues you raise are Bar Association matters. Nor do I have either the time or the interest to read transcripts of your depositions/trials.
Beth
Beth S. Jordan
Greene & Jordan
1120 Nye Street, Suite 250
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 485-9290
Facsimile: (415) 258-9074
Email: bethsjordan@comcast.net
JusticeCalifornia
February 12, 2011
It’s a bitch when you accidentally send an e-mail to the subject of your e-mail. Below is an e-mail from Matt White. Who is Matt White?
From the “Superlawyers” website:
Profile
Matt White has handled personal injury and other civil litigation cases throughout the Bay Area for over 30 years. He lectures extensively on trial advocacy, mediation, and ethics for bar associations and law schools and was faculty co-chair of the Personal Injury Institute at the Hastings College of Advocacy from 1995 through 2000. He has completed several advanced mediation training programs, is a mediator with Resolution Remedies in San Rafael and for the First District Court of Appeal, and serves often as a judge pro tem in San Francisco and Marin Counties. He is a past President of the Marin County Bar Association.
And here is that pesky e-mail. . .
From: Matt White
Subject: Re: Payroll Information
To: “Barbara Kauffman”
Date: Friday, September 21, 2007, 9:33 PM
Don’t take the bait. Even if you did everything she asked, it wouldn’t be enough until you called the IJ and demanded the arrest of everyone who has ever participated in a court decision that displeased Ms. K and her followers.
If she (or anybody else) thinks that someone has acted illegally, she can contact the police department or the District Attorney. Of course, they are in on the conspiracy, too, but that’s not our problem. The Bar Association is a mutual benefit association, not a law enforcement agency.
On Sep 21, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Barbara Kauffman wrote:
Beth, I am not trying to put you on the hotseat. I know you have no desire at all to tread into the FCS and minor’s counsel mess. But seeking to become and attaining a position of leadership means more than arranging monthly brown bag luncheons and other pleasant, noncontroversial activities.
On June 20, 2007 you sent me an e-mail acknowledging that the issues raised about Family Court Services and fees for minor’s counsel were “problematic”, in fact, your exact words were: ” I agree that these issues are problematic”.
You indicated you did not have the documents and law I had sent to various other members of the bar, and I sent you not just those, but ALL the most relevant documents about the FCS issue. You did not say you had no interest in them, you thanked me for them.
Now, as the heat is turned up– and this is turning controversial, because (yet another) Marin kid was just stripped from his protective mother — you say you don’t have “the time or interest” to deal with this, and it isn’t an MCBA problem. I find that offensive, and very troubling, coming from the Secretary of the MCBA. Let’s look at what the MCBA website says:
“With almost 800 members, it is the mission of the MCBA to involve, encourage and support bar association members, to serve as a liaison to the Marin County courts, and to educate the community and enhance access to legal services. ”
Meet the Bar
Membership in the MCBA demonstrates your support for the core values of our legal system — equal justice for all through equal access to an independent judicial system. Your membership dues help fund, among other things, (1) the Lawyer Referral Service, which for a very low fee connects people with Lawyers pre screened for their expertise, (2) the Client Relations Committee, which mediates disputes that may occur between counsel and client, and conducts Fee arbitrations, (3) the Administration of Justice Committee, which focuses on the effectiveness of our local court system, and (4) the Elimination of Bias committee, which investigates allegations of bias in our local courts. ”
Let’s all face it. We are lawyers. We all know that what Marin Family Court Services did is illegal. We look at the law. We look at the facts. Gloria Wu’s testimony is not subject to interpretation. It’s clear. It’s not complicated. We are not talking about one case, one “disgruntled litigant” — we are talking about an admitted pattern of illegal behavior that affects every family going through Marin FCS. And our bench and administration isn’t doing a thing about it– no one has said “boo” to Wu about her clearly egregious performance. They are supporting this behavior and using it to justify taking kids from their parents.
Beth, I hope, in the cool light of day this weekend, you re-think what you wrote.
I want to remind everyone, that the MCBA publicly jumps to the defense of the bench at the drop of a hat. That is the politic thing to do. The MCBA also proudly tells the press all about the judicial liaison process, and complaint process, etc., etc. etc.
Well, I am calling your bluff. I am making my complaints.
And I will wait to see what the MCBA does about this. If it does nothing, and one more child is taken from his or her parent as a result of FCS or Verna Adams illegal, biased, and/or otherwise problematic behavior, the MCBA will share the blame for “having no time or interest” in the problem. You can explain yourselves to the press (and everyone else), then.
Regards, Barbara
JusticeCalifornia
February 13, 2011
From: Barbara Kaufman
Subject: Re: Payroll Information
To: “Matt White” , RChernus@aol.com, “‘Ed Berberian'” , bos@co.marin.ca.us, “‘Daniel Harris'” , jeff@lermanlaw.com, bethsjordan@comcast.net
Date: Saturday, September 22, 2007, 12:24 PM
Matt, was your e-mail response below sent to everyone, or just mistakenly sent to me? In any event, I find your e-mail as offensive as Beth’s. I don’t think Ed’s going to appreciate you saying “of course” he and the police are “in on a conspiracy”, and I don’t think the MCBA would appreciate your view that such a conspiracy (if it existed) is not the MCBA’s problem. In addition, in my e-mails of the past week I haven’t addressed the MCBA in any capacity other than as an MCBA member–yet you talk about “followers”. And –geez-that comment about the MCBA being a “mutual benefit association” doesn’t sound so good–it makes it look like a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” game is in full force and effect– “we sure aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds us”, etc. etc.
But let’s talk about facts and law and professional and leadership responsibility, not police/DA “conspiracies” and “followers” and a “mutual benefit association.”
What I have provided you all with are black and white transcripts evidencing some very problematic behavior of court personnel — and that behavior affects a lot of Marin lawyers and residents. Beth herself called the issues “problematic.”
Matt, It’s easy for you to urge non-action because you are past president. You –who grew up and went to grade school with Duryee, and are a longtime personal friend of hers–always appear to be the MCBA spokesperson defending the bench and urging MCBA officers to take certain action–take a look at our last e-mail exchange two years ago about the Stone case. Then-president Len Rifkind — with the MCBA Board’s support and urging– got himself all caught up in defending Duryee about that case on 24 hours notice. You took the lead in jumping in and ensuring that my questions about who was involved in crafting Rifkind’s misleading letter–sent to the press and over 400 members of the bench and bar–were never answered. I have to tell you, Matt, you have no idea what the implications of the MCBA actions in the Stone case are at this point.
In any event, Jeff is currently up as MCBA president and Ed and Beth are in line to be next up. What they do now about this complaint may reverberate and reflect upon them for a very long while.
The importance of the information I just gave the MCBA is that it is not about a single case. It is about an admitted, avowed pattern of Marin FCS behavior a court employee disclosed in sworn testimony. It is about a Marin County form of order affecting ALL cases involving minor’s counsel in which that order is used. It is about a judge making an unknown number of blanket fee orders in a multitude of cases involving minor’s counsel, without a hearing. It is about a judge clearly violating the new Elkins case handed down by the Supreme Court in August 2007, that requires that the Marin family court ensure that local procedures are consistent with State law. It is about the court cloaking itself in secrecy about financial issues affecting all Marin taxpayers –whose money is being used to pay court employees who are not doing their jobs–and perhaps to overpay court-appointed lawyers–after the unfortunate $650,000 Montgomery debacle.
I don’t expect or want the MCBA to call the press (although certain members of the MCBA have a fondness for talking to the press about the virtues of our judges), or demand the arrest of anyone. What I do expect is that the MCBA will take whatever steps are necessary to do what it says it does in its mission statement and website.
If the MCBA is aware of illegal or problematic behavior by members or employees of our court, affecting great numbers of MCBA members and lots of Marin children and parents, and ignores it, the MCBA will have to explain to future victims and others why it knew about the problem, had proof of the problem in the form of sworn testimony by a court employee (as opposed to claims of a “disgruntled litigant”), and did nothing about the problem.
As I say, I am calling the MCBA’s bluff about how responsive it is to concerns of the public and members about the conduct of our court. And it is with great reflection that I have done so– because as I report what is going on here in Marin, I am always asked–have you told the bar association what is going on? Have you made a complaint?
Now I can say, yes I have. And Matt and Beth’s responses thus far speak volumes.
By the way, Ed, you are the District Attorney. I assume you are clearly getting that Beth and Matt think that what I am reporting are criminal issues. I assume since I have provided you with the information, you will act accordingly, in your dual capacities as District Attorney and President-Elect of the MCBA.
You know, in Los Angeles the bar association has solicited and posted reviews of judges online for the information and protection of the lawyers and the public. Pretty different attitude down there. Perhaps if certain members of our MCBA leadership can’t stand or don’t want the heat involved in addressing serious, documented, problematic issues affecting our court, MCBA members and the public, they shouldn’t be in the proverbial kitchen. Leadership of an organization made up of dedicated professionals charged with promoting and upholding the rule of law is not for the meek or timid. Those dedicated professionals are looking to the MCBA leadership to do what it can to effect the equal, lawful, responsible administration of justice in Marin County.
I do want to make it clear that by copying my e-mails to various individuals, I am not accusing them of anything. I am simply voicing my concerns to those I believe should be aware of them. And making sure that down the line, no one can say they didn’t know.
Regards, Barbara
JusticeCalifornia
February 14, 2011
From: Matt White [mailto:matt@mattwhitelaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Barbara Kaufman
Cc: bethsjordan@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Payroll Information
Barbara:
Meant to send it to Beth, went only to you. I will send this response to Beth, though.
I am not ashamed of my friendship with Lynn Duryee, but it’s not true that we went to grade school together, or even knew each other until we met professionally as adults.
The Bar is not an investigative agency and doesn’t have the resources to investigate the complaints of disgruntled litigants and their lawyers. Really, if you have evidence of laws being broken, that’s way beyond what the bar could do. It’s exactly up the alley of the police and the DA. If you really have transcripts proving illegalities, I would think the DA would be very interested. If not, well, maybe there are other remedies, or maybe you should move on to other issues.
I haven’t been that involved in the Bar for a while now, but as I recall, the Board could barely agree on where to eat, never mind on whether to devote its limited time to reading transcripts and re-examining various court orders. I have my own complaints about various courts, judges, other lawyers, etc., but I didn’t ask the Bar board to investigate them in order to pursue my own personal agenda.
As to the “mutual benefit” reference, that was my guess as to what kind of a nonprofit corporation we are, since we are not (for example) a religious organization. I’m not a corporate lawyer so I’m probably using the wrong term; if so, my apologies.
Beyond the disputes here, best personal regards.
Matt
Ctr for Jud Excellence
February 10, 2011
Here is the latest article on the CA Family Court Audit from today’s Capitol Weekly newspaper. You MUST read the children’s comments throughout this article to believe the extent of what kids are forced to endure at the hands of our state’s family courts.
State audit triggers new scrutiny of family courts
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=zhebxb6t55pme5&xid=zhdgibilpw5mnl&done=.zhebxb6t56bme5
The Center for Judicial Excellence has also been recently contacted by a whistleblowing mediator who is planning to go public in the coming days, and I can assure you, her testimony about what’s going on her county’s court validates everything we’ve been hearing and witnessing in courts across the Golden State.
This story is far from over, and as the media exposure of the family court crisis continues to increase, the number of whistleblowers will only increase along with it. Stay tuned…
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 10, 2011
The face of our justice system. Take an innocent child who has committed no crime, HANDCUFF HIM LIKE A COMMON CRIMINAL and remove him from his home. One has to wonder how many times this cycle is repeated each day around the state.
JusticeCalifornia
February 10, 2011
Yes and how about Judge Boren’s bizarre claim to this newspaper that there has been one complaint against the Marin Court in the last eleven years? Talk about reckless. . . .
As I post in the next few days about everyone who turned their backs on what was going on in Marin (as evidenced by sworn testimony of Marin Family Court Services child custody “mediators”), keep in mind that this shows how and why children are continuing to be brutalized with impunity.
A common thread of all the horrific stories about incompetence, retaliation and brutality that have surfaced is: everyone was told, and no one did a damn thing about it except cover it up, and punish those who complained. Until the legislature responsibly stepped in to perform its checks-and-balances function.
The audit requested by Assemblywoman Lieber in 2008 and then Senator Leno in 2009, and unanimously approved in 2009 by the bipartisan JLAC committee, was just the beginning. So much more work must clearly be done.
Ctr for Jud Excellence
February 10, 2011
Here is a press release about a courageous whistleblowing mediator named Emily Gallup who just prevailed in an arbitration with the Nevada County Department of Family Court Services. The family court there has been ordered to conduct an independent audit, to be paid in full by the court. Gallup’s testimony affirms everything that the Center for Judicial Excellence, Justice California, the California Protective Parents Association and others have been reporting about for more than 10 years. Criminal background checks of parents were being forbidden, despite state law mandating them, and domestic violence protocols were routinely ignored, among other violations of law. This brave woman’s testimony affirms that the recent Marin/Sacramento audit findings are indicative of statewide system failure in “recommending counties.” Watch for more articles from Southern California in the coming weeks that will prove that these problems are not constricted to northern California.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 10, 2011
Emily Gallup – 530.478.1340
emilygallup@yahoo.com
Kathleen Russell – 415.250.1180
kr@centerforjudicialexcellence.org
Mediator Blows Whistle, Prompts Audit of Nevada County Family Court Services
Court Took Retaliatory Action Against Mediator for Repeatedly Raising Issues
Nevada County, CA – A Family Court Services mediator has prevailed in her grievance against her former employer, the Nevada County Superior Court, prompting an independent audit of the Nevada County Department of Family Court Services. Emily Gallup claimed that Nevada County Family Court Services violated state statutes and rules of court governing the recommending mediation process, while retaliating against her after she raised these issues with courts officials. M. Catherine Jones of Nevada City represented Ms. Gallup.
“The Nevada County Superior Court and its mediators have been using undue influence to pressure parents into custody agreements,” says Gallup. Among the tactics used by the courts, Gallup explained that parents were routinely shown a picture of a young man who had committed suicide the day his parents had been unable to reach an agreement in court. Mediators were also pressured to complete their cases in one hour’s time.
Violations cited in Gallup’s grievance include failure to review legal files and criminal records, failure to contact collateral sources, and failure to follow domestic violence protocol. Gallup maintains that children and families throughout Nevada County have been harmed by the flawed practices of the family court department.
Family Court mediators, like Gallup, are required by law to guide parents into reasonable custody arrangements that protect children’s best interests. Mediators in recommending counties, like Nevada County, are also charged with the task of making child custody recommendations to the court in the absence of parental agreement. These recommendations carry great weight with the court, and are usually ordered.
“Emily’s courageous first-hand account proves beyond a doubt what court reform advocates have been saying for years – and what the recent state audit confirms. Complaints about mediators ignoring criminal records, domestic violence protocols and endangering children’s lives are legitimate,” said Kathleen Russell, Executive Director for the Center for Judicial Excellence, which pushed for the recent state audit.
The order for an audit of the Nevada County Superior Court comes just weeks after the conclusion of a 17-month audit of the Family Court Services departments of Sacramento and Marin counties. The audit of those counties revealed that large numbers of mediators are unqualified, untrained and unsupervised, and that the family courts maintained inadequate complaint procedures for the public. Gallup believes that a statewide audit is warranted at this time.
In a final and binding award dated February 6, 2011, Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that Gallup “had reasonable cause to believe that the Department of Family Court Services had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the mediations required by the Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court.” He further ordered Family Court Services to undergo an audit to assess its compliance with the law. The cost of this audit will be born exclusively by the court, and the results will be released to the public.
Gallup repeatedly tried to address her concerns about the department with her superiors, including the Interim Director, the Family Law Judge, the Human Resources’ Director, and the Court’s Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Gallup’s efforts to bring her department into compliance with the law were unsuccessful.
Arbitrator Burdick found that “the Court took reprisal actions against Gallup for her repeatedly raising and discussing these issues.” Retaliatory activity against Gallup included negative performance evaluations, denial of her annual pay increase, and a written reprimand delivered to her the afternoon before her scheduled week-long vacation. She was subsequently terminated from her job on December 21, 2010, prior to the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.
Burdick ordered the court to reimburse Gallup for her annual raise, her leave time, and attorney fees. It is estimated that the court’s handling of Gallup’s case has already cost taxpayers at least $100,000.
###
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 10, 2011
Just.Wow. I too am hearing that these are statewide issues.
JusticeCalifornia
February 10, 2011
Yes, and it does appear the judicial branch has a calculated method to its extreme madness and brutality in dealing with those who report misconduct.
SF Whistle
February 10, 2011
It is interesting to note that we do not pay much attention to the fact that the United States happens to be a nation born of revolution.
The colonial population found the abuses of those intent upon extending their exercise of power intolerable—-
Our Judicial Branch should take a vacation and be required to study some history—People are waking up and recognizing the blatant abuse of power in the very court system designed to protect us.
The lessons of people taking to the streets are not that many time zones away. The people of Egypt made the declaration that “enough is enough”….
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 10, 2011
One of our founding fathers summed it up well. This quote can be found in several places on this site because I can’t think of a better poster child than the judicial council and the AOC.
“The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdication, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
–Thomas Jefferson (1821)
Edited to add: I believe we here in California are at the place and point in time Thomas Jefferson warned us about. Either we can all sit back and play the same bystander effect/apathy game or we can act. The threat posed by doing nothing poses a greater threat than activism.
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Meanwhile, back at the family court “home” front, check this out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kenan-20110227,0,7724924.story?track=rss
I heard (but this has not been confirmed, although the question has been directly asked, but not answered) that one of the Marin’s Court’s MOST used (and MOST allegedly corrupt) minor’s counsel allegedly woke up one day some years ago, to find his girlfriend dead, beside him, of an alleged drug overdose.
Ctr for Jud Excellence
February 26, 2011
I have reviewed the court documents mentioned in this article. They contain really disturbing material, esp because the court and lawyers often coerce litigants into hiring a particular evaluator without much research or thought going into who any other choices might be. This guy sounds and looks an awful lot like a hard drug addict… and he is being entrusted with protecting the best interests of children in 250 custody cases?
A father sits in jail for a year and has barely seen his kid by choice for 2 years, and this clown claims he needs another $35K to figure out which parent should get custody, when the Mom has been paying for and raising the 5 year old on her own for some time? Corruption, pure and simple, and he and others have been getting away with it for years. Enough already. The AG needs to step in immediately and investigate the fraud and abuse that’s rampant in the family court system once and for all.
With no accountability whatsoever in the Calif family law system, and no one checking the credentials of these fools, we will undoubtedly continue to hear these horror stories as the system continues to rip at the seams.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 26, 2011
As unpopular this may be for judges they need to suck it up and deal with this too.
SF Whistle
February 27, 2011
Judges are most frequently part of the problem—having a cozy incestuous relationship with certain consultants of choice—
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2011
Meanwhile, once again back at the family court “home” front, check this out:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/#
Family/juvenile law is tough for all concerned.
Obviously, not all family/juvenile court judges are problematic, and not all family/juvenile court mediators/therapists/evaluators are PSYCHOBABBLE CHARLATANS. In some courts, good judges and qualified, ethical family/juvenile court professionals genuinely endeavor to do the right and lawful thing in tough custody cases, but on occasion make mistakes.
In other courts (like Marin), PURPOSEFULLY and illegally taking children from protective parents and giving them to abusers has been an art form for many years. It is done with alarmingly predictable regularity by certain problematic judges/commissioners/court employees/court appointees with sadistic glee (think Verna Adams and Richard Gardner groupies), retaliatory enthusiasm, cold political/financial pragmatism, resigned indifference, feigned ignorance or confusion, and/or laziness. It is also done by those with formerly good intentions, who are afraid to “rock the boat” and who choose to place their own careers above the safety of children. This keeps ever so many people in business now—judges, lawyers, therapists, co-parenting counselors, special masters, parenting coordinators, supervised visitation facilities, minor’s counsel and others—and later, as abused children predictably enter the system as mentally impaired/indoctrinated adult perpetrators and victims of domestic violence and abuse. Like incurable STDs, domestic violence and sexual abuse are ugly “gifts” that keeps on giving.
This has happened and is happening with increasing frequency. As multitudes of abused children grow up, and their stories come full circle and are publicized, I do believe that what certain family and juvenile courts have done/are doing will become a history lesson about judicially sanctioned illegal experimentation/research on and torture of innocent children and their horrified parents– promoted by and based upon recommendations of unregulated psychobabble quacks inappropriately, irresponsibly, and dangerously cloaked with quasi-judicial immunity.
Whether one is for or against recognizing “parental alienation syndrome” as a legitimate theory, the fact is PAS has created a multitude of unregulated charlatans that have used that concept and other “theories du jour” to make themselves rich by recommending the placement of children with abusers.
Letting psychobabble quacks make custody recommendations is a bit like allowing witch doctors and psychics to advise surgeons about where the cancerous tumor is located. Cloaking these people with quasi judicial immunity is dangerous and irresponsible. Eliminate that immunity and watch how quickly these psychobabble charlatans get out of the family/juvenile court custody games, and find other victims to hoodwink, torture and fleece.
SF Whistle
March 3, 2011
This article also seems to have a focus upon Judges that refuse to follow the law??? Judge Sing in San Francisco seems comfortable NOT following the law?
Again—-these examples of judicial conduct underscores the screaming need for an intiative for judicial reform—-REFORM MUST INCLUDE LIMITS UPON IMMUNITY—-
IF JUDGES LIKE LILLIAN SING were unable to hide behind immunity they would would be more careful and thoughtful—-