REPORT NO. 2
A Report by the
1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury
February 6, 1992
FAMILIES IN CRISIS
INTRODUCTION
For the past four years the San Diego County Grand Jury has
spent considerable time on examination of the Juvenile
Dependency System. The Jury has issued numerous reports,
starting with the 1988-89 overview report, "Children in Crisis".
Some of the recommendations from that comprehensive Grand Jury
Report were implemented, some were not. Had more been
implemented, and had that report provoked an honest and thorough
self-examination within the Department of Social Services (DSS),
perhaps the inquiry of the sitting Grand Jury would not have
been necessary.
The Grand Jury would like to report that County Counsel and
DSS had been equally forthcoming. Such was not the case. On
several occasions attempts were made to observe the workings of
various new programs in the DSS. These attempts were blocked by
DSS and County Counsel with the explanation that the Jury's
observations would be violating the confidentiality of their
clients. Sometimes the Jury was successful in bypassing such
efforts, other times it was not.
COMMUNITY CONCERN
In all cases, the taxpayers pay for the courts, DSS, County
Counsel, foster care, and Hillcrest. In most cases, the
taxpayers also pay for the Court-appointed therapists,
evaluations, residential treatment, and court-ordered services.
Many of these charges are billed back to the family through
Revenue and Recovery.
NEW PROGRAMS
There are new programs in this community which may improve
some of the problems found by the Grand Jury. A report could
not be written about what may be happening in six months or a
year. The Jury is limited to reporting on what was found at
this time. It is hoped that innovative new programs, and, in
particular, a Family Preservation Program, may partly ameliorate
some of the current problem areas.
For the most part, the frustration within the system at the
line social worker level comes not from not knowing what would
help children and families, but from an inability to provide the
services that they know will help. Caseloads are too large, and
intervention resources too scarce. Frequently, by the time a
family has "survived" court intervention, it is too hostile to
trust a social worker trying to provide services for
reunification. Everyone "on the line", from initial services
caseworker to judicial officer, is overwhelmed by the caseload.
PERMANENCY PLANS
Forty percent of all children in the dependency system at
any given time will never return home. Many are adopted. We
have received testimony and seen evidence that the Department
seems philosophically unaware that adoption of children will
frequently have long term adverse consequences to the lives of
all concerned.
REMEDIES:
MORE ATTENTION TO CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE SYSTEM
PROPER INVESTIGATION
LAW ENFORCEMENT
THE COURTS
MINOR'S COUNSEL
DEFENSE COUNSEL
The Jury has spoken with many of the defense attorneys both
on the private panel and the Office of the Alternate Public
Defender. The Jury is aware of the extreme stresses this group
faces. The Jury understands and commends the leadership
decision of the Alternate Public Defender to both limit the
number of cases his deputies can take and to rotate his deputies
out of Juvenile Court on a periodic basis. Panel attorneys have
the advantage of representing both parents and children, so that
they are not always under the stress of representing the alleged
perpetrator.
COUNTY COUNSEL
THERAPISTS
FOSTER PARENTS
Some of the problems with Voices stem more from form than
substance and need to be addressed by Voices in order to avoid
the perception of bias. Voices advocates should be reminded to
adhere closely to the professional ethic, so as to avoid this
perception. There is a desperate need for more bilingual and
minority advocates and advocates with a background in education
and child development. The Jury recommends that advocates be
assigned to highly-contested cases on a priority basis.
COMMUNITY INPUT
CONCLUSIONS
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the
PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS
#92/27: Purge from the San Diego County Child Abuse computer
all unfounded complaints within 30 days and all
unsubstantiated complaints which have remained inactive for
one year.
JUVENILE COURT:
#92/59: Allow therapists, who are not on the list but with
whom the client has already established a relationship, to be
allowed to continue with the client.
COUNTY COUNSEL:
SI-HSS1
NOTE: APPENDIX I (1 page) is available by writing to:
Att: Coordinator
San Diego County Grand Jury
1420 Kettner Blvd. Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92101-2432