These are funny cartoons that include references to actual cases in Riverside County, CA.
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 unrepresented child. (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 hearing. (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 accordingly.
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 appropriate. (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.
This is absolutely CRAZY! These people CHOSE to adopt a child, they chose to adopt a “special needs” child, just like couples chose to have a natural child. Natural parents don’t receive any money for having a “special needs” child. Most of the “special needs” children ,who they claim “need” medication, wouldn’t need medication if they were never taken from their families!! The system is the most discusting, perverse, hypocritical, abomination! Adoptive parents don’t deserve money any more or less than the biological parents!
Watch this news report:
I skipped the weekend because I doubt that Judges would check out donnellyjustice.me on their day off!
We have said before, this can happen to ANYONE. Want to know why? Because the Supreme Courts do not recognize YOUR right to be a parent or your CHILD’S right to be raised by you. The Supreme Court’s opinion includes the notion that losing your child in no way compares to losing your freedom of movement (being in jail). This sets the standard for all lower courts.
Well, maybe for a person who does not give a hoot about their child it would be no comparison but I will tell you what, for the rest of us, who adore their children, losing the right to even SEE your child is like a DEATH SENTENCE!
According to the Supreme Court, a parent or child’s right to counsel is not guaranteed by the 6th Amendment in the Constitution because it is not a “criminal” case. So giving this theory a fair shot, in all criminal cases, even for misdemeanors where the maximum sentence is a mere 6 months in jail or even a fine, a person has a right to counsel. I don’t think a few months in jail or merely a fine compares to losing your child forever do you? But in misdemeanor cases you have a right to counsel but in dependency proceedings you do not have a constitutional right to counsel and neither does your child. They attempt to “explain” it saying that the dependency and termination of parental rights process is to “protect” children but that is just the cover for what is really going on..