Gene Kent, John Rodriguez, Nilima Gupta, Barbara Cleary Dianne Senechal, Christine Schaefer, Virginia Zlaket, Linda

Additional Recommendations 10

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R1

  Page 151
  Orange County Child Support Services is to recommend support orders that will most likely result in payment. Any proposed order in excess of 20% of the father’s income should be viewed as unlikely to be collectable. This study acknowledges CSS’s role per California Family Code § 17000 as an extension of federal law limiting it to the collection of support.42 Again, this study recommends CSS actively aid parents in seeking orders that will most likely result in payment – not just printed numbers on paper orders. (F1, F2, F3, F4,
• R10

  Page 143
  On October 1, the mother and the father both show up at court. The court requests the mediation report which doesn’t exist because neither the mother nor the father had an attorney to tell them about mediation11. The Family Law Court continues the case to November 1 so the parents can go to mediation on October 15.
• R11

  Page 143
  The parents attend mediation to no avail. They cannot agree on custody.
• R12

  Page 143
  On November 1, the mother and the father argue their cases before the judge. The Family Law Court makes a ruling that the father has 40% custody of the children.
• R13

  Page 143
  On November 10, the couple returns to CSS with the Family Law Court order in hand. Neither parent is satisfied with CSS’ proposed child support order. A 40% custody time share to the father yields guideline support of $311 per month (See
• R14

  Page 143
  On Jan 3, Child Support Court makes an order for $311 (See Exhibit C). If this was a misery to read, consider the 10 months of torture visited on these parents held captive to the California system of wielding the law in the CSS/Child 11 All family law cases involving custody must be heard by Court Services Mediation prior to presentation of before the court. It is the court’s attempt to help parents settle matters on their own terms rather than those dictated from the judge. FC § 3170 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody Support Court arena under the auspices of AB1058. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE! Attorneys at CSS feel confident that given the authority to council mothers and fathers regarding child custody, they would be successful in resolving a very significant percentage of the 15,000 cases resigned to the courts – both the Child Support Court and the Family Law Court. Steps 5 through 14 above could often be eliminated. This would reduce judiciary costs significantly. Whether the state would allow the County to keep the savings is another issue. The federal government does not intend to torture mothers and fathers nor exacerbate the cost of making child support orders. U.S.C. 666(d) specifically exempts the state from procedures which are not effective and efficient in the enforcement of state guidelines for child support12 In most cases, the weight and inertia of the system defeats the appeal for justice by the parents and children concerned. Faced with the option of (1) accepting an arbitrary custody arrangement so as to establish a support order or (2) going through a tortuous process, most parents surrender to a custody arrangement having little to do with either parents’ desires or the best interest of the child.13 From the perspective of getting the fiber though the cotton gin, the current system works. The magnitude of the finances and emotions of parents in the throes of eking out a child custody and support arrangement is a major life changing event – an event that CSS gives due respect. CSS scheduled over 17,000 court appearances for over 9,000 families over the past 12 months. Of those, over 11,000 were initial filings; and, 6,000 were continuances. This action was expensive. To put this in other terms, there are about 250 court days available a year. Seventeen thousand court calls divided by 250 days means the court has to address about 68 cases a day. That means at least one court room, one judge, a couple of clerks, a bailiff, a CSS attorney and her support staff are needed. To be conservative, the study assumes the parties are all self-represented (i.e. they have no attorneys). It would be nearly impossible to put an actual price tag on this action; but, CSS indicated that avoidance of these court filings to any degree would be a significant savings to both the CSS and the Child Support Court. Giving CSS the ability to recommend child custody as opposed to court action would help tremendously. This is not to infer for a moment that parents could not avail themselves to the courts if unhappy with CSS recommendations.14 12 This is to state 42 U.S.C. 666(d) in positive terms rather than the double negative of the code. To most people, a court appearance is akin to meeting with the inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. This is not meant as hyperbole, but the reality of the quest for justice in the family law arena. Court filing statistics provided by Orange County Department of Child Support Services. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody Limitations of Child Support Services and Child Support Courts CSS was created by California Family Code § 17202: “The department [CSS] is hereby designated the single organizational unit whose duty it shall be to administer the Title IV-D state plan for securing child and spousal support, medical support, and determining paternity…”15 Before the creation of CSS, collection of child support was left to the Orange County District Attorney. All child support action had to be dragged through the Superior Court system. CSS, created as an agency in the executive branch of state government, was granted powers to act independently of the court system in much the same way as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS can calculate tax liabilities including interest and penalties and use its power to lien and levy personal accounts to collect its due. Likewise, CSS is empowered to calculate child support, and interest and take whatever steps are necessary to enforce the court’s order and collect the money. CSS orders are subject to judicial review by a parent before the Child Support Court in a similar manner as a taxpayer has the right to be heard by the Tax Court if he/she feels an order is unjust. In accordance with FC § 17208: “[CSS] shall reduce the cost of and increase the speed and efficiency of, child support enforcement operations. It is the intent of the Legislature to operate child support enforcement program through [the county CSS]…” Child Support Court was created by California Family Code 4252(b)(2)(a): “Commencing July 1, 1997, each superior court shall provide sufficient commissioners to hear Title IV-D child support cases filed by the local child support agency… pursuant to Section 17400, for an order to establish, modify, or enforce child support…” Title IV-D refers to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.16 The purpose of IV-D is to stop the bleeding of welfare costs used to support single mothers and children. Support of needy mothers was created under a welfare program known as Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It was created by Congress in 1935 and continued until 1996 when Congress replaced it with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).17 Title IV-D’s intent is to place financial responsibility for these needy mothers and children on the men who fathered the children. The federal law put the burden of enforcing collection on the states.18 To finance the costs of establishing a 15 CSS limits collection of spousal support to cases where spousal support is integrated with child support into “family support.” Family Code § 4501. A family support order is enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a child support order. Title 42, Public Health and Welfare 17 The difference between AFDC and TANF is beyond the bounds of this report. Though claimed to be a horse of a different color, it is still a horse. 18 42 U.S.C. 666(a) 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody child support collection program (CSS and the Child Support Court), the federal government reimbursed 66% of the states’ expenses, provided the state pays the remaining 34%.19 Although the federal government has a financial interest in replacing TANF costs with parent-paid child support, it has no interest in financing the states’ family law courts neither does the federal government have any constitutional jurisdiction to meddle in family affairs of the citizens of the states. It is therefore understandable that the federal government limits its support to the collection of child support and leaves all other family law issues to the states. Orange County would stand to lose many millions of dollars of federal support20 if the federal government interpreted County CSS and/or the Child Support Court action on child custody outside the specific guidelines of 42 U.S.C. 654, 655 and 666 which defines the County’s authority to make support orders. Fortunately 42 U.S.C 666(a)(10) and 42 U.S.C. 666(d) do authorize determination of child custody in connection with support orders. A Reasonable Interpretation of Title IV-D This Grand Jury, and some legal minds in the County interpret federal law as permitting custody and visitation orders as a necessary part of making support orders. U.S.C. 666(a)(10) states in a redacted version: “(a) …each State must have in effect laws requiring the following procedures… (10) Review and adjustment of support orders upon request… of either parent…taking into account the best interest of the child involved – (I) review and adjust the order …pursuant to section 667(a)…” 42 U.S.C. 667(a) mandates such a review of child support be in accordance with state guidelines (California FC §§ 4050 through, 4057) which in turn mandate the inclusion of child custody percentages between parents. U.S.C. 666(d) exempts the state from, “the use of any procedure or procedures…[which]… will not increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the state child support enforcement program…” This begs to be interpreted such that the “effectiveness and efficiency” of collecting child support is absolutely dependent upon the simultaneous determination and ordering of child custody when making child support orders. Nowhere in Title IV-D can this Grand Jury find language that denies CSS from advocating child custody. On the contrary, 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(10), 42 U.S.C. 667(a) coupled with 42 U.S.C. 666(d) is explicit in directing CSS to follow state guidelines in 19 42 U.S.C. 655(a) 20 The federal government contributed over $55 million to support CSS in fiscal year 2011/2012. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody making child support orders. California Family Code § 4055 specifically mandates consideration of child custody in child support calculation: “(a) The …guideline for determining child support orders is…[among other factors]: (D)…approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children…” These four codes (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(10), 42 U.S.C. 666(d) & 42 U.S.C. 667(a) and California FC § 4055), tied together by reference for total adherence of the law, mandate CSS consider child custody in order to advocate child support orders. The Solution – New Legislation CSS needs legislative authority specifically empowering it to mediate child custody orders. With such authority, it could openly and intelligently present its orders to the Child Support Court for adjudication as necessary. The Child Support Court is to CSS as Tax Court is to the IRS. California FC § 4250(b) states in pertinent part: “(b)…it is the intent of the legislature to: (1) provide for commissioners to hear child support cases being enforced by the local child support agency [CSS].” In sequence, California FC § 4251 states: “(b)…All actions or proceedings filed by the local child support agency [CSS] in a support action or proceeding in which enforcement services are being provided pursuant to 17400 for an order to establish, modify (emphasis added) or enforce child …support…shall be referred for hearing to a child support commissioner…” It follows that if CSS were specifically granted the authority to advocate for child custody, Child Support Court must rule on child custody. As a matter of fact, CSS advocates for custody orders daily. First it utilizes the judicial council form FL-150 (Income and Expense Declaration).21 On , item 16, each parent is required to declare how much time he or she cares for the children (see Exhibit A). Second, California Department of Child Support Services sponsors a web site with a link to calculate child support. On the second page of the calculator is the question, “time with parent 1( %)”22 “Time with parent” is a custody issue. Pretending that custody is not 21 AB 1058 advocated the Judicial Council prepare simple forms to determine child support. FL-150 was thus developed. The web site can be reached through Google, “California Department of Child Support Services” then link to “Calculate Child Support” 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody currently being considered by CSS and Child Support Court is ridiculous and serves no one. As a matter of federal law, as a matter of fact, and as a matter of practicality, custody is already on the table. Here in Orange County, Custody is the elephant in the room. The call for custody/visitation mediation and orders by CSS is not a mere local whisper. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement out of Washington D.C. is prompting states to empower their child support agencies to aid parents in visitation and custody issues. On April 15, 2013, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement advanced the Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative in the Administration’s FY 2014 Budget. Among other things, the initiative proposes that:  [All states] establish access and visitation (emphasis added) responsibilities in all initial child support orders, just as custody arrangements are typically settled at the same time divorces are finalized.  Federal resources are [to be] made available to states that choose to include parenting time responsibilities (emphasis added) in initial child support orders beginning in FY 2014 and all states are required to include parenting time responsibilities in all new child support orders beginning in FY 2019.23 Prompting Orange County to seek state legislation to empower CSS to include custody and visitation in its proposed orders is all but insignificant. The Federal Government, from whom millions of dollars pass to the compliant states, will almost certainly be mandating such changes as a contingency for the continued flow of those millions. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement’s rationale for including visitation and custody in CSS orders is that fathers who participate in the lives of their children pay support more consistently than those fathers who don’t. This is the same conclusion heralded by the Orange County 2012-2013 Grand Jury study titled “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” Lost Child Support Cost $1.3 Billion.24 Both this report and the Grand Jury’s study, “Best Interest of the Child…” were motivated by the leadership of CSS. That CSS leadership and the federal government are in such agreement bodes well for the future of financing the County’s youth as well as including paternal (do we dare say “love”) in the formula. In any event, California Family Code § 17400(a)(d)(g) must be amended as shown below in pertinent part: 23 Office of Child Support Enforcement, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/child-support-and- fatherhood-initiative-in-the-administrations-fy-2014 24 http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2012_2013_reports/BestInterestofChild021513.pdf 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody FAMILY CODE Section 17400 (a) Each county shall maintain a local child support agency, as specified in Section 17304, that shall have the responsibility for promptly and effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations, including medical support, enforcing spousal support orders established by a court of competent jurisdiction, and determining paternity in the case of a child born out of wedlock. The local child support agency must determine the percentage of time each parent or pertinent party has custody of the children in order to determine child support in accordance with state guidelines beginning with Family Code section 4050. … (d) (1) The Judicial Council, in consultation with the department and representatives of the California Family Support Council, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, and a legal services organization providing representation on child support matters, shall develop simplified summons, complaint, and answer forms for any action for support brought pursuant to this section or Section 17404 including a declaration as to the percentage of time the declarant has custody of the pertinent children. The Judicial Council may combine the summons and complaint in a single form. (2) The simplified complaint form shall provide notice of the amount of child support that is sought pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Article 2 (commencing with Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 9 based upon the income or income history of the support obligor and the percent of time the obligor has custody of the child(ren) as known to the local child support agency. If the support obligor's income or income history is unknown to the local child support agency, the complaint shall inform the support obligor that income shall be presumed to be the amount of the minimum wage, at 40 hours per week, established by the Industrial Welfare Commission pursuant to Section 1182.11 of the Labor Code unless information concerning the support obligor's income is provided to the court. If the support obligor's custody time with the child(ren) is unknown to the local child support agency, the obligor’s time share shall be deemed zero. … (3) (A) The simplified answer form shall be written in simple English and shall permit a defendant to answer and raise defenses by checking applicable boxes. The answer form shall include instructions for completion of the form and instructions for proper filing of the answer. (B) The answer form shall be accompanied by a blank income and expense declaration or simplified financial statement and instructions on how to complete the financial forms. Both of these shall include space for the defendant to declare what percent of the children’s time they are in his/her custody. … (g) (1) In any action to establish a child support order brought by the local child support agency in the performance of duties under this section, the local child support agency may make a motion for an order effective during the pendency of that action, for the custody, support, maintenance, and education of the child or children that are the subject of the action. This order shall be referred to as an order for temporary support. This order has the same force and effect as a like or similar order under this code…. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Fixing the Law Cutting Through the Tangle of Child Support and Custody Making New Law Proposing, drafting and ultimately gaining passage of any legislation is not within the Grand Jury’s purview; however, the entity which would most profit from such legislation would be CSS. The Grand Jury’s proposed language to amend FC § 17400 are roughly drafted. This Grand Jury opines that there are fine legal minds within Orange County CSS as well as other counties that might refine the proposed language.
• R15

  Page 139
  Regional Occupation Program (ROP) -. opportunities to work in the community with businesses such as: carpentry, landscape, culinary arts, business technology, etc.
• R16

  Page 139
  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Assessment Recovery, Relapse, Preventative Treatment – evaluation of particular drug abuse and factors that influence such 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Detention Facilities Part II: How Do We Know If We Are Taking Care Of Our At-Risk Juveniles? abuse. Urinalysis as scientific evidence assessment of drugs in the body. Use of strategies by a drug counselor to aid in recovery and avoidance of relapse. Elements in this program to prevent drug abuse in the first jplace.
• R17

  Page 139
  Thinking for a Change (T4C) – evidence-based program with twenty-five lessons on how to make better life decisions. It is designed to prepare youth to re-enter and transition back into the community. Other therapy is tied to these lessons such as; remedial education, rehabilitative treatment, substance abuse therapy, anger management, and job skills.
• R18

  Page 139
  The Youthful Transition Intervention Program (YTIP) - integrated services for incarcerated youth as they transition out of confinement and re-establish themselves in their home, school, community by offering services to reduce drug and alcohol abuse, decrease recidivism and delinquent behavior and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. They help youth increase job skills and assist parents to stay involved with their youth. This federally funded program was suspended in 2012 as the federal grant expired. 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs -- Are They Effective??? 2012-2013 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs, Are They Effective??? SUMMARY The 2012-2013 Orange County Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Inmate Correctional Programs Unit, which provides opportunities for inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs while incarcerated in all five of the adult detention facilities in Orange County. These facilities are: (1) Intake Release Center, (2) Men’s Central Jail, (3) Women’s Central Jail, (4) Theo Lacy, and (5) James Musick. The Correctional Programs Unit was created in compliance with the California Penal Code, California Board of Corrections Titles 15 & 24 and related case law, to minimize the number of inmates who recommit crimes after release. Current programs and resources include educational classes such as General Education Development (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL), vocational educational training (sewing, carpentry, welding, and food services), and “life skills” classes, such as, Parenting and Job Development. Other programs for personal improvement include: programs focusing on substance abuse recovery, domestic violence, anger management, religious and inspirational programs, general and law library services targeted re-entry services, and Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR). All are designed to maximize the chances of an inmate’s successful transition into the community upon release. A number of new programs such as, Parent/Child Visiting, In Custody Transition, and Warehouse Worker Training are being considered. The Sheriff’s Department has expressed concern over the increase in jail population due to passage of AB109. AB109 transfers responsibility from the state to the county for incarcerating low security risk inmates. Limiting the jail population to the space available has brought the issue of recidivism to the forefront. Although current management is providing many programs intended to rehabilitate, at a cost of about $5 million per year, their effectiveness in reducing recidivism is absolutely unknown due to the lack of a system to compile measurable data and a clear definition of recidivism. Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Correctional Programs management and the criminology and sociology programs at the University of California at Irvine (UCI) have initiated conversations whereby the two entities could eventually work together to create a scientific statistical analysis of the Correctional Programs’ efforts. REASON FOR STUDY Spending “about” $5 million per year on Correctional Programs without any evidence that this money has rehabilitated a single inmate is unacceptable. It is hopeful at best and wasteful at worst. This study demands accountability for efforts and money directed towards reducing recidivism. The Correctional Programs Unit was created in compliance with the California Penal Code, California Board of Corrections Titles 15 & 24 and related case law, to 2012 – 2013 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Rehabilitation Programs, Are They Effective??? minimize the number of inmates who recommit crimes after release. The effectiveness of these programs is of vital concern from a financial and human perspective. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The 2012-2013 Grand Jury engaged in the following activities:  Visited all the facilities.  Interviewed the managers and the supervisors of the facilities by phone.  Reviewed listing of current programs.  Examined successful programs in other counties and state prisons.  Reviewed limited financial records as provided by Correctional Programs.