Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
New Legislation Needed: Juvenile Records July 1, 2004
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
The jury was unable to determine how well CPS is meeting its obligations of providing required interventions and family services in accordance with its mission statement and governing regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
New legislation should be passed that includes the grand jury in the list of parties authorized to inspect juvenile case files under Article 22, “Wards and Dependent Children Records” of California Welfare and Institutions Codes, Division 2, “Children”, Chapter 2, Section 827 Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations None Requested Responses to Recommendations Member of the State Senate representing Sonoma County – 2nd District. – R1 Member of the State Senate representing Sonoma County – 3rd District. – R1 Member of the State Assembly representing Sonoma County – 1st District – R1 Member of the State Assembly representing Sonoma County – 6th District – R1 Member of the State Assembly representing Sonoma County – 7th District – R1 Research and Investigation The jury interviewed the following employees of the county: (cid:131) Director of Family, Youth, and Children Services Division (cid:131) Manager of Pre-placement Services (cid:131) Manager of Placement Services (cid:131) Manager of Valley of the Moon Children’s Home and Redwood Children’s Center The jury also interviewed 4 Complainants. 4/5 July 1, 2004 The jury reviewed the following documents: “A Guide to Reporting Child Abuse to the California Department of Justice” (Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Special Services), Effective 10/27/99.) “County Self-Assessment User’s Guide” Ver. 1.0 (CDSS), January, 2004. “Implementation of Child Welfare Services Outcome and Accountability System” (State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Dept. of Social Services, (CDSS), February 3, 2004. “Peer Quality Case Review: Overview of Process and Tools for Child Welfare Services Cases” (CDSS.) January, 2004. People v. Tulare County 107 Cal. App. 4th 488 (2003) Selected documents from CPS case files with approval of juvenile court judge. “State of California Program Improvement Plan (PIP) for Child Welfare Services Program”. (CDSS) January, 2004. “Sonoma County Family Youth and Children’s Services Division Mission Statement” (undated) “Understanding the Child Welfare System in California: A Primer for Service Providers and Policymakers”, (California Center for Research on Women and Family, November, 2002).
F2
The grand jury is not authorized to see CPS case files; limited access may be achieved only by means of a petition to the presiding judge of juvenile court, but it must be on specific items in a file which the judge deems sufficiently essential to the jury’s work to balance privacy constraints.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Only parties to a case may be present at court proceedings of CPS. Juvenile Court records are not public documents. 3/5 July 1, 2004 Conclusions While it is possible for persons outside CPS to learn in a general way the processes it employs to carry out its work, it is very difficult for the grand jury to assess how adequately or equitably these processes are followed in specific cases, given the rigorous requirements of confidentiality in child protective services. Some of the factual issues raised by the complainants can be investigated by the use of waivers and petitions to the court, but systemic issues and questions of quality and equity require broader study and are not easily resolved by requesting some certain document or without the ability to do comparisons. In the cases reviewed during 2003-2004, the jury found that, to the degree it was able to discern, the appropriate processes were followed in an adequate way and questions and concerns raised by the complaint process were answered. At present, the grand jury is not included under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 in its list, of parties authorized to investigate juvenile records. However, Penal Code section 925 describes the grand jury’s power to investigate county agencies such as CPS. New legislation rather than judicial decision will be required to address this contradiction, as the case, People v. Tulare County 107 Cal. App.4th 488 (2003) found: “Undoubtedly the grand jury plays an important role as a public watch dog…, but the standoff between the competing policies served by section 827 and Penal Code section 925, if there is such a standoff, can only be resolved, if it is to be resolved, by the Legislature.”
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 4While it is possible for persons outside CPS to learn in a general way the processes it employs to carry out its work, it is very difficult for the grand jury to assess how adequately or equitably these processes are followed in specific cases, given the rigorous requirements of confidentiality in child protective services. Some of the factual issues raised by the complainants can be investigated by the use of waivers and petitions to the court, but systemic issues and questions of quality and equity require broader study and are not easily resolved by requesting some certain document or without the ability to do comparisons. In the cases reviewed during 2003-2004, the jury found that, to the degree it was able to discern, the appropriate processes were followed in an adequate way and questions and concerns raised by the complaint process were answered. At present, the grand jury is not included under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 in its list, of parties authorized to investigate juvenile records. However, Penal Code section 925 describes the grand jury’s power to investigate county agencies such as CPS. New legislation rather than judicial decision will be required to address this contradiction, as the case, People v. Tulare County 107 Cal. App.4th 488 (2003) found: “Undoubtedly the grand jury plays an important role as a public watch dog…, but the standoff between the competing policies served by section 827 and Penal Code section 925, if there is such a standoff, can only be resolved, if it is to be resolved, by the Legislature.”
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma Mountain County Water District
Special District