CORRECTION: TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA DOES NOT LIST ANY OTHER JUDGES IN THE STATE AS OF YET. BUT THIS JUDGE IS THE HIGHEST PAID ADMINISTRATIVE/SOCIAL SERVICES JUDGE WITH REGARDS TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS SITE. SOME STATE EMPLOYEES/AGENCIES DID NOT PROVIDE TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA WITH THEIR INFORMATION.
First, take their regular bench pay, add overtime, “other” pay and benefits and you get $230,000 to always rule in favor of CPS. That means: sustain every petition, order the care, custody and control (of every child named in every petition), to the DIRECTOR of Public Social Services by declaring that each and every child named in a petition comes within the court’s jurisdiction, to OVERRULE any and all objections from the parents’ attorney (only the private pay attorneys EVER OBJECT since the “Defense Panel attorneys NEVER OBJECT), and to adopt all findings and orders that the Department includes in their attachment to the report (and rather than adhering to Welfare & Institutions Code regarding the conduct of the “Judge” he/she gets away with simply stating, “I adopt the findings and orders contained on Page [blah blah] of the Detention Report.” follow the law and regulations that say you SHALL examine the parents and/or any other person with relative information, you SHALL make paternity findings, you SHALL inquire as to the reasonable efforts put forth by the Department), This “Judge” is paid to make sure every child that comes before the court is denied the right to GO HOME.
355. (a) At the jurisdictional hearing, the court shall first
consider only the question whether the minor is a person described by
Section 300. Any legally admissible evidence that is relevant to the
circumstances or acts that are alleged to bring the minor within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court is admissible and may be received
in evidence. Proof by a preponderance of evidence must be adduced to
support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section
300. Objections that could have been made to evidence introduced
shall be deemed to have been made by a parent or guardian who is
present at the hearing and unrepresented by counsel, unless the court
finds that the parent or guardian has made a knowing and intelligent
waiver of the right to counsel. Objections that could have been made
to evidence introduced shall be deemed to have been made by an
(b) A social study prepared by the petitioning agency, and hearsay
evidence contained in it, is admissible and constitutes competent
evidence upon which a finding of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 300
may be based, to the extent allowed by subdivisions (c) and (d).
(1) For purposes of this section, "social study" means any written
report furnished to the juvenile court and to all parties or their
counsel by the county probation or welfare department in any matter
involving the custody, status, or welfare of a minor in a dependency
proceeding pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 300) to
Article 12 (commencing with Section 385), inclusive.
(2) The preparer of the social study shall be made available for
cross-examination upon a timely request by a party. The court may
deem the preparer available for cross-examination if it determines
that the preparer is on telephone standby and can be present in court
within a reasonable time of the request.
(3) The court may grant a reasonable continuance not to exceed 10
days upon request by any party if the social study is not provided to
the parties or their counsel within a reasonable time before the
(c) (1) If a party to the jurisdictional hearing raises a timely
objection to the admission of specific hearsay evidence contained in
a social study, the specific hearsay evidence shall not be sufficient
by itself to support a jurisdictional finding or any ultimate fact
upon which a jurisdictional finding is based, unless the petitioner
establishes one or more of the following exceptions:
(A) The hearsay evidence would be admissible in any civil or
criminal proceeding under any statutory or decisional exception to
the prohibition against hearsay.
(B) The hearsay declarant is a minor under 12 years of age who is
the subject of the jurisdictional hearing. However, the hearsay
statement of a minor under 12 years of age shall not be admissible if
the objecting party establishes that the statement is unreliable
because it was the product of fraud, deceit, or undue influence.
(C) The hearsay declarant is a peace officer as defined by Chapter
4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal
Code, a health practitioner described in paragraphs (21) to (28),
inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 11165.7 of the Penal Code, a
social worker licensed pursuant to Chapter 14 (commencing with
Section 4991) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, or
a teacher who holds a credential pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing
with Section 44200) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Education Code. For the purpose of this subdivision, evidence in a
declaration is admissible only to the extent that it would otherwise
be admissible under this section or if the declarant were present and
testifying in court.
(D) The hearsay declarant is available for cross-examination. For
purposes of this section, the court may deem a witness available for
cross-examination if it determines that the witness is on telephone
standby and can be present in court within a reasonable time of a
request to examine the witness.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, an objection is timely if it
identifies with reasonable specificity the disputed hearsay evidence
and it gives the petitioner a reasonable period of time to meet the
objection prior to a contested hearing.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the right of a
party to the jurisdictional hearing to subpoena a witness whose
statement is contained in the social study or to introduce admissible
evidence relevant to the weight of the hearsay evidence or the
credibility of the hearsay declarant.
355.1. (a) Where the court finds, based upon competent professional
evidence, that an injury, injuries, or detrimental condition
sustained by a minor is of a nature as would ordinarily not be
sustained except as the result of the unreasonable or neglectful acts
or omissions of either parent, the guardian, or other person who has
the care or custody of the minor, that finding shall be prima facie
evidence that the minor is a person described by subdivision (a),
(b), or (d) of Section 300.
(b) Proof that either parent, the guardian, or other person who
has the care or custody of a minor who is the subject of a petition
filed under Section 300 has physically abused, neglected, or cruelly
treated another minor shall be admissible in evidence.
(c) The presumption created by subdivision (a) constitutes a
presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
56. After hearing the evidence, the court shall make a finding,
noted in the minutes of the court, whether or not the minor is a
person described by Section 300 and the specific subdivisions of
Section 300 under which the petition is sustained. If it finds that
the minor is not such a person, it shall order that the petition be
dismissed and the minor be discharged from any detention or
restriction theretofore ordered. If the court finds that the minor is
such a person, it shall make and enter its findings and order
358. (a) After finding that a child is a person described in
Section 300, the court shall hear evidence on the question of the
proper disposition to be made of the child. Prior to making a finding
required by this section, the court may continue the hearing on its
own motion, the motion of the parent or guardian, or the motion of
the child, as follows:
(1) If the child is detained during the continuance, and the
social worker is not alleging that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5
is applicable, the continuance shall not exceed 10 judicial days. The
court may make an order for detention of the child or for the child'
s release from detention, during the period of continuance, as is
(2) If the child is not detained during the continuance, the
continuance shall not exceed 30 days after the date of the finding
pursuant to Section 356. However, the court may, for cause, continue
the hearing for an additional 15 days.
(3) If the social worker is alleging that subdivision (b) of
Section 361.5 is applicable, the court shall continue the proceedings
for a period not to exceed 30 days. The social worker shall notify
each parent of the content of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 and
shall inform each parent that if the court does not order
reunification a permanency planning hearing will be held, and that
his or her parental rights may be terminated within the timeframes
specified by law.
(b) Before determining the appropriate disposition, the court
shall receive in evidence the social study of the child made by the
social worker, any study or evaluation made by a child advocate
appointed by the court, and other relevant and material evidence as
may be offered, including, but not limited to, the willingness of the
caregiver to provide legal permanency for the child if reunification
is unsuccessful. In any judgment and order of disposition, the court
shall specifically state that the social study made by the social
worker and the study or evaluation made by the child advocate
appointed by the court, if there be any, has been read and considered
by the court in arriving at its judgment and order of disposition.
Any social study or report submitted to the court by the social
worker shall include the individual child's case plan developed
pursuant to Section 16501.1.
(c) If the court finds that a child is described by subdivision
(h) of Section 300 or that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 may be
applicable, the court shall conduct the dispositional proceeding
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 361.5.
For the complete W&I Codes (California) go to: CA W&I Codes
THIS COURT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT IS NOT EVEN LEGAL (LIKE THEY TRY TO MAKE CRIMINAL COURT TO BE). IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, or Civil Law, AS IF FAMILIES ARE A COMMODITY. Here:
48. The provisions of Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 469) of
Title 6 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to variance
and amendment of pleadings in civil actions shall apply to petitions
and proceedings under this chapter, to the same extent and with the
same effect as if proceedings under this chapter were civil actions.
This court is not even like FAMILY COURT and orders are NOT SIGNED (at least not back when our case was active in 2007-2012) therefore, actual custody by the Department is NOT LEGAL. For example, in Family Court you get a signed and sealed Order granting or outlining custody and control of the children. Let’s say you file for divorce and custody of the children and after a long or short battle, you are awarded full custody of the children with your ex getting supervised visits every other weekend. So then one day your ex goes to the children’s school and signs them out and takes them home and when you go to pick them up from school they are not there and the office tells you that your ex picked them up (of course you should have provided the school with a copy of the order but let’s say you forgot). Now, you call your ex and say you are coming to get the children and they say, “No, I’m not letting them go.” But you have legal rights to call the police, show them a copy of the signed and court-stamped order and they will assist you in getting your kids back from your ex. But if you don’t have a copy of the order, they will not assist you. Luckily, if the courthouse is open, you can easily go there and get a copy and show it to the police and then they will help you. In Juvenile Court, CPS never gets SIGNED ORDERS but the police will still assist them! To compare further, let’s say that your ex files for divorce and custody of the children. Let’s say he is allowed to rent a courtroom and pay a “Judge” and a bailiff and pay the attorneys including the one that represents YOU (and then frown and be harder on you if you pay for your own attorney). How fair would that be? THIS IS THE WAY JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT OPERATES!
IN FACT, ALL STATE COURTS ARE SET UP THIS WAY. THE STATE, I.E. “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. JOE AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY”. THE STATE PAYS THE JUDGE’S SALARY AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S SALARY AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S SALARY. NO WONDER THE CONVICTION RATE IS SO HIGH! This was the single biggest mistake in our “justice system”, providing an attorney if you cannot afford one. Private attorneys would have to charge a great deal less for representation but would that be a BAD thing?
Here is a clip showing the highest paid CA Judge is also a CPS Judge.
Pay this article forward:
Leave a Reply