September 25, 2003

Waive. Waive. Waive.
From Anthony Smith

This is part of my story regarding the judicial system...Gene Forte who is currently running for Governor...www.attorneybusters.com is trying to organize a rally outside the courthouses in CA

Get a lot of complaints that the social workers lie or twist the truth?  Gee...I wonder why...They can write whatever they want in those reports that the judges look at and no one contests them.

Waive. Waive. Waive. That is not Justice your Honor. That is wrong. Ethically and morally wrong. Do you get why parents would get angry when you have no representation? Ask any of them that have legal dependency or ADA...Why are there more parents with no money stuck in
your system? Waive...Waive...Waive...

Here's some advice (ask other parents who have ADA or DLS)....Two minutes before your first hearing after your children have been ripped out of your home you are advised by your "competent" attorney's assistant who is working in your "best interest" tells you to waive all of your rights. "You'll never win. If you want  your kids back, just waive. And if they ask you about any medications that you are on just don't say anything. I understand that you were just released from the hospital and you're taking vicodin, but don't say anything. It will just hold things up. (Although you tell the attorney's assistant what is in the report is not true they tell you don't fight, you can't win.)

Really? What they really should have told me is, that they can't win because they don't have time to fight for anyone. They are so overloaded with cases that they can't even return a phone call for two months.

It's all about the money isn't it? It's not for the protection of the children. The system is abusing the parents and children. All it would have taken was the police report showing that I was the victim of a violent crime and had my back fractured. I was put on Demerol in the hospital and yes it made me loopy.

It was not true what the social workers had written, that I was hospitalized for having delusions that gang members were after me and for back pains. Nice twist social workers
to justify why they had no warrant, no court order, no interview with me or anyone else. Just an allegation made by my sister in law who was angry with me because my brother had sex with a girlfriend I had.

They said that the police were concerned. The only police concern was that they asked the police to accompany them to remove my children from their schools. Really...where was the imminent danger of great bodily injury? Thanks to my DLS lawyer who never informed me that once we waived my rights, although something that wasn't true was now true and forever true.

I tried calling repeatedly and I wanted to appeal. I finally found out my public "defender" no longer worked there and by that time it was too late to appeal.

Then the social workers painted me violent. I "threatened" them and frightened the entire office. What does that sound like? Does it sound anything close to the truth? I threatened to sue them. That is all. Wouldn't they have slapped a restraining order on me if I threatened them with anything else?

In a review hearing that they held a restraining order was thrown in.

Here's how the "hearing" went.

First there was nothing filed as to why they were filling a restraining order. I wasn't given notice nor shown any paperwork concerning the matter. Commissioner Schwartz just asked me if I minded. I said, I dunno. (As my public "defender" is telling me to say no you don't mind)I guess not. There was something said that I was a flight risk, because I moved from Oregon to California with my children. I had sole legal and physical custody of my children which of course my divorce paperwork was never presented by my attorney or by my social worker who had the information. They said my ex-wife said I ran off with our children.  I thought they were restraining me from taking my children out of California.

Not some three year full blown ridiculous restraining order to keep me away from my babies. Is this justice? (I have never been found to abuse my children. I also went through a battery of psych exams which I never should have had to have done. They showed I wasn't delusional.

Something so simple turned into something ridiculous. Have you ever been on Demerol?

We wouldn't be having this problem if I had been properly defended.

We wouldn't have this problem if the social workers knew that they couldn't just make stuff up. It's true that they do that. They're out of control because there's no one to keep them in check. I wouldn't be writing you if things were just.

I understand that you must have a lot of angry people out there. But please, look into this matter no just for me, but for the other parents. If I would have known what I know now and what I didn't know then, I think the outcome of this situation would have been 100% different.

What if they had written that I was a heroin addict (which I'm not)? I would have then been considered a heroin addict because I was advised to waive my rights.

Even after I hired Mr.Guerin Provini, it was too late. He could tell by then that the social workers hated me. He knew I was being railroaded.  We tried to present new and material evidence such as the police report showing I was a victim of a violent crime which Commissioner Schwartz refused which denied me due process. (Which the social workers had but would never present evidence that was favorable to me, which is wrong.)

Knowing that I was going to lose, I tried to fire my attorney because I couldn't afford him any longer.

Commissioner Schwartz made him proceed in my behalf. I had hoped that she would stand by her word in the beginning of the trial, that she would make sure there was a visitation order. But I guess I was punished for not showing up. I just couldn't take the humiliation anymore. I had been beaten down.

The only excuse that I can understand as to why things are so wrong is because of money.

I'm sure there are other families, father's, mother's that have been railroaded also. This needs to be investigated. Why do you think the social workers never give you their reports in advance? So you can't defend yourself and the public defenders won't stick up for you or
fight for you.

Thank you for your compassion and justice.



Subj:    here is the article...nothing has changed
Date:    9/17/03 8:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time   


PARENTS LACK SAVVY LAWYERS DEPENDENCY COURT: THOSE TRYING TO REGAIN CUSTODY OF CHILDREN OFTEN ARE REPRESENTED BY INEXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS.

December 5, 1999
Section: Local
Edition: Morning Final
Page: 1B
HOWARD MINTZ, Mercury News Staff Writer
Memo: RELATED STORY: page 6B

Illustration: Photos (2), Chart

Caption: PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Santa Ana lawyer Gary Proctor, above,
secured a contract to provide legal representa-tion to
parents trying to regain custody of their children in Santa Clara
County.

PHOTO: JUDITH CALSON -- MERCURY NEWS
Left, Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards says Proctor's project is
doing
a good job with limited resources.


On most mornings, the three waiting rooms in Santa Clara County's
juvenile dependency court are a jumble of activity. Social workers
huddle with families. Mothers and fathers, accused of neglect or
abuse and facing the prospect of losing their children, sit and
listen. Some bury their heads in their hands. Others, like one mother
who keeps jabbing a finger at her case file, become animated and
angry.

It is usually in one of these drab waiting rooms, or in the hallways
outside court, that the mothers and fathers first meet their lawyers.
Parents thrust into the child welfare system, most of them poor and
unfamiliar with the legal terrain, might then get a few minutes to
tell their story before they find themselves in front of a judge.

To juvenile law experts, this fleeting encounter between parents and
their court-appointed lawyers illustrates a serious problem provoking
debate in Santa Clara County and across California. Critics say
overworked, underpaid and often inexperienced lawyers are
shortchanging parents in a near-invisible but crucial corner of the
justice system.

''The memory for me will always be that we weren't represented in a
way we should have been,'' said a Campbell mother who has been
fighting since early 1998 to get her four children back, and who
spoke on condition of anonymity. ''I've had three different attorneys
who come in and don't know anything about your case, and then tell
you they can't do much. It's scary.''

The account is all too common in the secret world of child
dependency law, according to experts. Whether it is Silicon Valley or
the Central Valley, in today's legal system a lawyer is likely to
spend more time with a client involved in a lawsuit over an auto
accident than with a parent who might be forced by the state to
surrender a child.

''It's safe to say that too often, the very worst representation in
juvenile court is the representation provided to parents,'' said
Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association's Center on
Children and the Law. ''That's an issue that has to be addressed.''

Legal representation for parents -- many of them accused of the type
of neglect society despises most -- has taken on unprecedented
importance in recent years as a result of tough new child welfare
laws.

Private program
Debate flares over
hiring of law firm

Concerns about such representation have percolated to the surface in
Santa Clara County, where the local judges this fall renewed a
contract for acontroversial, for-profit Santa Ana-based outfit hired
three years ago to handle the task.

To its supporters, including Superior Court Judge Leonard Edwards,
perhaps California's leading expert on juvenile law, Santa Clara
Juvenile Defenders is a successful, cutting-edge experiment that is
doing a good job with limited resources. Juvenile Defenders handles
about 2,500 cases a year with 14 attorneys who are working in a tense
legal environment many lawyers shun.

''Frankly, I've been pleasantly surprised by what we've seen,''
Edwards said. ''It's clear to me that (the dependency firm) has
delivered legal services better than any entity we've had in this
county.''

But to its critics, the experiment has failed hundreds of parents
filtering through the system each year.

It is difficult to evaluate individual cases because of strict
confidentiality laws governing dependency proceedings. Attorneys are
reluctant to speak on the record because of those laws, as are
parents who fear they will jeopardize their cases. But there are
widespread reports of frazzled, ill-prepared lawyers who don't have
the resources or training they need to protect their clients' rights.

Complaints range from failing to challenge the findings of social
workers to declining to appeal cases. And some of these reports are
from lawyers who once worked for the dependency firm, which has been
plagued by high turnover.

Five former members of the office interviewed for this article
described frustration with the operation and admitted that they could
have done more for their clients.

''We had so many clients at one time that I didn't know my clients'
names until I'd look in the file just before court,'' said Elisabeth
Hansen, who worked for Juvenile Defenders in 1997, shortly after law
school. ''I didn't feel they were getting the representation they
deserved.''

Added another recently departed lawyer: ''(The) way dependency legal
services is set up, no one is keeping the system honest.''

The new federal and state child-welfare laws make it is easier than
ever for agencies to take a child away from parents in cases
involving allegations of abuse and neglect. Parents who choose to
fight for their rights now face an uphill climb, and experts say they
need good lawyers to protect them in court.

It is against this backdrop that the debate over legal services is
taking place. If nothing else, experts say, these parents -- most of
whom don't have the means to hire a lawyer on their own -- need a
savvy legal guide to walk them through the process. Although Santa
Clara County's dependency court as a whole is considered a model in
the state, there is profound disagreement over one aspect: whether
the lawyers most often representing parents here are doing an
adequate job.

The system changed in 1997, when the board of supervisors, on a 3-2
vote, approved a little-noticed $1.3 million contract for Juvenile
Defenders, a group headed by Gary Proctor, a prominent Santa Ana
lawyer. The county, among other things, picked Proctor's group
because it would save nearly $1 million a year.

The contract rankled local lawyers. For one thing, it involved
abandoning the old system of using the public defender's office and a
panel of local lawyers to represent parents. The small circle of
dependency lawyers in the county also viewed Proctor as a
carpetbagger who would spend more time on his law practice in Santa
Ana than in San Jose. And Proctor was chosen over local candidates,
including the Legal Aid Society.

''Any time you have an outsider coming in and displacing the local
(system), there is going to be anger and discontent,'' said Howard
Siegel, a former chief of the public defender's dependency unit who
was hired by Proctor to supervise one of his two offices. ''In this
case, I'm satisfied most of the criticism is sour grapes.''



With Edwards' endorsement, the Superior Court in September decided
to renew Proctor's contract. The three-year deal is worth roughly
$1.76 million per year, although it may be cut short if more state
funding does not come through in 2000. Legal Aid left out
Lack of public debate
draws criticism

Critics say the Superior Court judges should have opened up the
matter for public debate before renewing Proctor's contract. Legal
Aid, which now has the local contract to provide court-appointed
lawyers in criminal cases, wanted the dependency work, but didn't
know about the renewal until told by the Mercury News.

''We were interested in doing that work,'' said Susan Sutton,
president of Legal Aid's board of directors. ''I'm not sure we've got
the circumstantial guarantee that (the current setup) is the best we
can do.'' Judge Edwards, asked about the bidding issue, replied: ''I
think (Legal Aid) would be a good contract bidder next time. But we
just decided to go ahead and roll it over this year.''

Sutton and other dependency experts say Proctor's office has cut too
many corners, leaving parents without recourse against the findings
of social workers.

Opposing lawyers also express concern that Proctor's staff, while
energetic and dedicated, often is overburdened and green. The county
counsel's office, which represents the social services department,
and the district attorney's office, which represents children, both
staff dependency court with experienced lawyers who make
substantially more money than the attorneys appearing for parents.
Starting salaries for Proctor's lawyers are often $10,000 a year less
than a starting salary for DAs or a county counsel.

Until recently, Proctor's office was staffed primarily with lawyers
fresh out of law school or with little legal experience. By
comparison, other counties, such as San Mateo and San Francisco, have
panels of lawyers with years of experience in dependency court.

''The individual attorneys are very bright, very conscientious, but
they don't have the type of experience I think would make for better
representation,'' said Deputy District Attorney Penny Blake, who has
represented children in dependency matters for 11 years.

''There is a problem with a lack of visible advocacy,'' adds Michael
Kresser, director of a San Jose appellate project that inherits cases
from Proctor's office and reviews their work. ''We see a lot of these
cases submitted . . . without any evidence or any argument in favor
of the client. They are not contesting anything.''

Admitting problems
More experienced lawyers added

Proctor concedes his original plan backfired. As a result, he has
gradually replaced rookies with more experienced lawyers, although
many of them still have limited experience in dependency work.

''It didn't work out up here,'' Proctor said. ''This is a much more
adversarial, litigious courthouse than Orange County.''

Proctor and his supporters say he is getting a bum rap. In many
quarters he is considered an innovator in the world of dependency
law. He has embraced a philosophy that judges such as Edwards and San
Diego Superior Court Judge James Milliken, another juvenile-law
leader, consider groundbreaking.

Proctor maintains lawyers for parents should act as social workers
to help reunify families, many torn apart by drug addiction; he
pushes his staff to abandon the confrontational approach used in
other areas of the court system.

While critics say this approach leads to poor advocacy, Proctor
insists it benefits parents and their children if his lawyers can get
services for clients instead of spending their time fighting in court.

''There is no question in my mind that across the board (this
program) is providing a higher level of representation than the old
(panel of attorneys),'' said Siegel. ''It is working as well as it
possibly can with our budgetary restraints.''

For better or worse, Proctor's experiment in Santa Clara County may
not last much longer if those budgetary restraints don't loosen.
Sounding frustrated, Proctor says the courts must find a way to
provide better funding for legal representation or he might pull out
of the county next year, which the contract allows him to do.

''This isn't a cash cow,'' says Proctor. ''The court has got to do
everything it can to get the money from the state. If it doesn't
happen, they may need to find a different way of doing business. It's
not fair to our parents to be in a battleground where we're so
outnumbered.''