APPENDIX A:
CALIFORNIA COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Judicial Council of California's Long-Range Plan

As previously noted, the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (PL 105-89) set the stage for improving court operations, and provides funding for this purpose. In response, the Judicial Council of California has adopted a Long-Range Strategic Plan to prepare for the significant changes facing this state's courts. The introduction to this plan notes that one fundamental issue facing California courts is:

The Role of Courts in Society: owing to changes in societal structures, the courts are now expected to provide much more than the services which have been traditionally and strictly associated with the court's dispute resolution function. Many people, government officials as well as court users, seek therapeutic or preventive justice from the courts. They look to the courts to coordinate the provisions of social services while providing dispute resolution services that affect the very core of people's lives. Examples of the changing role of the courts include new drug and other specialty courts and the court coordination of social services with all justice system proceedings in cases involving families and children.⁽¹⁶⁸⁾

California Judicial Council's Statewide Conference on Community-focused Planning

In early 1998, the California Judicial Council sponsored a statewide conference on community-focused planning, for the first time. The conference concentrated on the need for local court action planning that emphasizes community in court planning, and incorporates community outreach efforts in court operations. In compliance with federal law, the Judicial Council is implementing a series of court reforms, including providing every dependency court judge with a computer; offering funding for innovative court-social service partnership pilot programs that improve system operations for the benefit of children and families.

In April, 1997 the Juvenile Law Subcommittee of the Judicial Council's Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee published the California Court Improvement Project Report which makes 27 recommendations for court improvements.

Judge Leonard Edward's Recommendations for Court Improvement

Judge Leonard Edwards (Superior Court of California in San Jose and Co-chair of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Family and Juvenile Law) has written 23 recommendations for court improvement "that ensure that courts operate effectively and efficiently without further abusing the children and families they are meant to serve".

A summary of these steps are listed below:

---

State legislatures, supreme courts, and judicial councils should ensure juvenile court judge stature in order to attract qualified jurists willing to devote a substantial part of their judicial careers to the juvenile court.

Legislators, supreme courts, judicial councils, etc., must ensure that adequate numbers of judges and administrative staff are available to hear juvenile court cases so that each case receives enough time to be heard fully.

Judges should encourage social service agencies to establish protocols which permit parents to receive voluntary in-home placement services prior to the filing of a formal petition, thus creating the opportunity for the provision of intensive services in an effort to resolve the family crisis without formal court proceedings.

Presiding judges should assign judges to the juvenile court for 3-5 years and should assign child welfare cases to the same judicial officer from start to finish.

Judges should ensure that all child welfare cases in the court system begin with careful attention to locating family members as well as to timely provision of social services and due process for the child and family.

Judges should make certain that their courts are well managed, safe, and accessible to the public. Judges should conduct timely calendars, make sure that all reports are filed on time and that all parties are present, and avoid unnecessary continuances or delays of court proceedings.

Judges must ensure that there is a trained guardian ad litem and/or attorney for each child.

Judges must make sure that indigent parents receive competent legal representation in child welfare cases; judges should also encourage social service agencies to retain competent counsel for these cases.

Judges must know what services are available for children and families within the community.

Judges should hold court reviews of the child's status at least every six months and preferably every ninety days after entering a dispositional order.

Juvenile Courts should be automated to enable the court to maintain information and manage case flow.

Judges should ensure that every child reaches permanency planning in a timely fashion.

Judges should make sure that local court rules and forms are drafted and implemented for the administration of child welfare cases.

Judges should ensure that all judicial officers, attorneys, and other members of the child abuse and neglect system regularly participate in cross-training regarding all aspects of child welfare law.

Judges should meet regularly with agency representatives and other members of the court system to discuss administrative and court operation issues as well as matters of general concern.

Judges should promote a culture of patience, dignity and courtesy throughout the court system so that professionals treat each other with respect and follow local rules.

All participants in the juvenile abuse and neglect process should treat each case as if it were an emergency.

Juvenile Court judges should reach out to the media and make it possible for them to get to know how the juvenile court works.

Court systems should utilize trained volunteers to speak for and support children and families.

Juvenile Court judges should dismiss cases which no longer present child protection or permanency issues.

Long term assignments and specialization should be encouraged for all professionals in the child welfare system.

Judges and court administrators should create a coordinated court system such that decision makers, investigators, case managers and service providers all know about and coordinate with each family's related legal proceedings.

Judges should utilize alternative dispute resolution techniques such as mediation, settlement conferences, and family group conferences to resolve child welfare issues.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾

---

Judge Edwards further states that he is in favor of redesigning the court structure so that all child/family questions -- including divorce and child custody -- are under the jurisdiction of a unified child-family court, as suggested in "Family Law Court 2000." He notes that Santa Clara County currently has a unified family court that is located in several different buildings: "We can't put all parts of a case in one department because people have to move around town to get the work done. The answer is one courthouse for family matters."⁽¹⁷⁰⁾ (See also Judge Edwards recommendations of this topic in Chapter I: Juvenile Court, the last paragraph and Chapter II: Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, the sub-chapter on Domestic Violence, section on Need for Coordination between Health, Justice and Social Workers)

Table of Contents. Next section.