Update:  Breaking News:

Before beginning, a reality check.  The massive refusal of our government to protect our most vulnerable. 

A failure so large in scope, so entirely preventable, but the obscene result was  two dead kids, and one dead mother at the hands of the police, the DA, State Court judges and the Parole Board. 

A better example of taxation without representation simply cannot be found.

Our hope being family court judges will soon implement the solution that will save lives, and the State of California, double-digit millions.  As judges have the power to make restraining orders, the hope is they will soon begin crafting these orders with a GPS victim notification, component to render them effective. 

Troubles continue for the group in charge of the Elkins Task Force.

Especially in San Diego where the money changers are at it, still.  Not sure why Judge Bostwick looked like a good guy, with his record.

First comes a website about the AOC and then come the Sacramento Bee story about the Chief Justice Ronald George's vision for state-wide computers, costing double-digit millions and of course, don't work now and Won't work, any time soon.

As for the Committee overseeing the AOC budget?  They can be found here.  Please contact them with your thoughts.  Also, committee members might want to check out the lawsuit filed against the AOC.

Attorney Eric Fagan arrested in cold case custody dispute murder.  Interestingly, Fagan' domain name is registered to Dan Knox at "Lethal Networks" in San Diego.

Then, there's the murder-suicide,  Again.

For additional solutions to domestic violence, (murder, and murder suicide) see the Solutions page. Specifically, the Column on the right.

CJP Admonishes Judge Robert Schnider.  Knew of problems - did nothing.

Most disconcerting in the above case and further rocking public confidence in the courts, was Judge Katherine Feinstein's vote for a private admonishment, rather than for government accountability and transparency.

Given cases were delayed up to five years, Feinstein's decision validates the public's valid lack of confidence in the courts - as prior to Feinstein's civil jury trial assignment in 2006, she served as the Supervising judge of the Unified Family Court, presiding over juvenile dependency, delinquency, family law, and domestic violence matters.

Are the judges trying to decide how to hold the costs up in family court?   Who is leading the pack?  To the surprise of no one, the case was again continued.

While media urges Sacramento County officials to conduct background checks on their CPS workers, (7 percent have criminal histories) San Diego judges have a long history of ordering  litigants to use supervised visitation services of individuals they know lied about their credentials.

Meanwhile, our Chief Justice Ronald George, and his lovely wife, Barbara, attend the opening of the San Francisco Opera.

                                    

///

Further Ironies:

Although Juvenile Court usually gets all the press, the conditions in Family Court remain exactly the same.  In fact, judges should consider how many children are killed from family court issues as those in State care.

The only difference is the politics.

It's worth noting Bay Area attorney, Joe Cotchett, who played a significant role on the Commission for Impartial Courts; well knows another name for family court is, "The Perjury Palace."  And Cotchett didn't want his divorce public.  (See below.)

But the public will benefit if Chief Justice Ronald George - long removed  from the stark reality of the abject failure of family court; realizes change will only occur when people seated at the table to make policy include new faces, instead of the usual suspects. 

The State of California spent $57,000.00 for the results of a study group that supposedly held nineteen focus groups.  The problem being the public wasn't a part of the group, didn't select the questions and the "group" was comprised of 83 judges and court officers and a grand total of 58 real live litigants.

If the Courts are serious about reform given the San Francisco hearings, there's no reason to believe they are, they must begin working with their critics, rather than those same old, old boys club.

This exactly Mirrors the Ohio Supreme Court which stated in its 91 page report, Divorce Court needed major reform, beginning with the too-cozy relationships between the courts and attorneys.

As the state continues to economically implodes - consider of how much less litigation there would be if the tactics Cotchett used to shield information in his own divorce; wouldn't have occurred had measures been in place for family court judges to routinely refer instances of perjury; to the DA for prosecution?

Another issue?  Taxpayer supported  Misogyny.   It's more common than the courts wish the public was aware and there is no excuse for the waiting to file against this eighteen year police department veteran.

Although our entire system of justice is based on telling the truth, it makes zero sense the accepted alias for family court is  The Perjury Palace.   Reform comes in not routinely ignoring perjury.  As the situation currently exists, he or she who lies first, is usually the one who lies best, and who often wins the prize:  Children. 

Making things slight worse, judges appear annoyed by those who complain perjury is being ignored, and opt to punish the person demanding perjury be dealt with, instead.

On the other hand, perjury is great for business. 



Perjury percolating through family courts guarantees business remains brisk.  Unfortunately, as crimes against family members are not dealt with in the appropriate courts, family court judges own a part in people getting killed by insisting on dealing with crimes against family members in family court, when the DA should be handling it.  As the website KillerJudges.com notes; Family court judges are simply not equipped to deal with crime.

Meanwhile, as this article from the Orange County Register demonstrates, reporter Rachanee Srisavasdi didn't identify the  judge who first sentenced Terry Snyder to probation.  Probation ultimately provided Snyder both a sense of entitlement, which later morphed into an unrealistic lack of accountability for his actions.

Yolanda and her children paid the price for Terry Snyder's probation.  Had there been zero tolerance for earlier attacks on her, the need for a memorial fund might not exist.  Next of course, is the CPS issue.

                                                                                        

 

 

 Although California is a, "no fault" state, judges by largely, ex-prosecutors looking for blame.  Blame arrives via custody evaluators, therapists, and police officers not doing their job.  Ergo this site was created for the express purpose of education for California's top judge.  The hope to hear from Chief George, and our sincere hope he is not shielded from it by countless intermediaries, remains.

Meanwhile, and adding fuel to the fire, Angela Irvine, head of Ceres Policy Research, who bid for a contract to do research, responded she was unable to remember how much she was paid for her nineteen focus groups. 

Most troublesome?     Judge George seems to have minders who keep him from the stark, family court reality.

How Blue Ribbon Panels keep Chief Justice Ronald George and private practice attorneys in the dark.

Judge Aviva Bobb - a case study. 

First up:  Press release trilling Bobb's selection by a Blue Ribbon Panel to receive an award for "access to justice."  No one finds it odd commissions and special awards are needed for "access to justice."

Note "Staff Writer" Diane Curtis' article on Bobb's award in the California State Bar Journal.  Missing from the both the Blue Ribbon Panel who recommended Bobb and Curtis's article? Any mention of Miss Jeanene Bonner.

The murder of a young Jeanene Bonner a little girl who asked to appear in Bobb's family court, which Bobb  denied.  (When not writing articles describing herself as  a "Staff Writer" Curtis doubles as a pr flack.) 

Undaunted, Jeanene wrote Judge Bobb a letter.  Later, the court spokesperson said letter was discounted because it was thought to be "contrived."  Yes, the LA County spokesperson blamed the now dead eleven year old for not writing a better letter.

"Pasadena Star News
June 29, 2002
Letter reveals murdered girl's fear
By Marie Leech Staff Writer
 
ALTADENA -- Ten months before she was murdered, 11-year-old Jeanene Bonner wrote a letter to a Los Angeles family court saying she was so scared of her father, Joaquin "Jack" Garcia, that she didn't want to see him. "My family has been threated by him and till this day I'm afraid to go to sleep with out knowing everybody is OK.
 
"I do not feel safe around Jack because I feel like my life is at risk," Jeanene, then 10, wrote.
 
The judge instead threw the letter out of court, Jeanene's mother, Kim Almodovar, said.
 
Almost a year later, Jeanene's fears apparently came true.
 
Kim Almodovar holding a note that her eleven year old Jeanene Bonner wrote to Judge Aviva Bobb at Los Angeles Family Court. (Walt Mancini)
 
The Altadena girl's body was discovered June 5 in Butte County in Northern California near the body of her father. The deaths are being classified as a murder-suicide.
 
"I need to let that judge know that was a bad decision she made," Almodovar said. "If she had just taken five minutes to talk to Jeanene, this might not have happened."
 
Steve Parachini, spokesman for the county Superior Court, said the court looked at the letter differently than did Almodovar.
 
"The letter struck us as having a tone suggesting to us that she didn't write it," he said. "And (as) in every other family court in California, the judge will not interact directly with the child except in the most extreme circumstances."

Fast forward a few years, and yet another, "Blue Ribbon Panel" chooses and Judge Bobb accepts an award for  allowing litigants "Access to Justice."

The second problem being attorneys who read the State Bar Journal, and Judge George who bestowed the award and undoubtedly, high praise on Bobb;  might actually believe the award was deserved.

***

Reality bites.  Former Court Administrator sues.

Peeking inside one lawsuit filed by one former administrator in Sonoma Court - tells a different, more realistic story.  Family court litigants can view the seldom reported, significant problems one can expect to encounter when a court refuses to address the problem of  "highly respected" attorneys or mental health experts of dubious credentials, causing real damage to families who come to court.

The second matter however, is those who have a license...who have threatened to make the lives of people miserable.  Then do.  Who are these so called professionals friendly with?  Judges on the Elkins Task Force.Just as powerful cliques run corporations, politics as usual played its supporting role in the selection of Elkins Task Force members.  Thus, if the Elkins Task Force is interested in credibility, it must squarely address members on the problem side of the ledger.  Currently it's a case not of foxes guarding the hen house.  It's more like foxes guarding other foxes in the hen house.

The hens were killed off a long time ago.

Elkins Task Force - a short, but usual history.

Members of the public were encouraged to apply via a press release:

"The Judicial Council is soliciting applications and nominations for the Elkins Family Law Task Force. The charge of the task force is to study and propose measures to assist the trial courts in achieving efficiency and fairness in family law proceedings and to ensure access to justice for litigants, many of whom are self-represented. Judges, court staff, family law attorneys and others interested in examining family law procedures are encouraged to apply. It is anticipated that the task force will meet quarterly beginning in Spring 2008 for approximately 12 to 18 months. Please use the fillable form found at the link to submit an application or nomination for the Elkins Family Law Task Force. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/taskforceapply.htm"

The reality?  Business as usual.  Not a single "member of the public" was accepted.  It's all attorneys and those already working in the system, including those who are the problem.   (See the San Diego section.)

Still, the public hope Justice George, who continues being  surrounded by layers of trusted attorneys and mental health officials, will establish credibility and at the very least for obvious reasons, first eliminate San Diego from the roster, and allow an actual members of the public to participate. It's not too late.

If the court claims to want to hear from the public, then the public should have a seat at the table.  Otherwise, it's just window dressing.  A fresh approach from those who don't financially benefit from their suggestions.  Should Justice George consider only reports from "Blue Ribbon Panels" including those whose rulings have sparked a public outcry, the Elkins Task Force is just another example of government working to protect judges and other "professionals" instead of serving the public.  One simply cannot claim to serve the public while keeping the public determinedly out of the policy making process. 

We know children want to be heard, and any therapist worth their salt will agree listening to children is what boosts their self-esteem as it validates them.  We know of one ten year old who requested her mother put her hair in a bun so when she met with the attorney appointed to her case, would think she was old enough to listen.  Sadly, the attorney spent the entire time talking about her miserable child hood, and made a recommendation, (rubber-stamped by Judge Peter Allen Smith) that was the exact opposite of the child's wishes.  The child's physical abuse at the hands of her father, continued.

While we respect some of the individuals involved with the Elkins Task Force, others, frankly, cause alarm.  History has repeatedly demonstrated Blue Ribbon Panels are in effect, tightly woven packs of a particular mindset bent on strangling fresh-faced outsiders arriving with sincerity and new thoughts and ideas.

These gatekeepers ensure existing problems remain entrenched.  Thus in an oxygen starved atmosphere,  innovation doesn't die.  It is never allowed to waft in through a window in the first place.

We suggest the Task Force begin with Opinion pieces requesting public input in general interest newspapers, not legal ones.   The public hope is Chief Justice Ronald George might loosen these oxygen-starved, tightly woven the blue ribbon panels and move instead towards the constitutional right of parents to raise their children with the least amount of government interference. 

Doing so will enable family court litigants to enjoy a peaceful, cost-saving, and in some cases, life saving, change...as judges can't possibly believe a "professional" is better equipped to speak on behalf of the child.

Additionally, we note while California is the most populous state, we are confident what happened in Mississippi, with  Gov. Haley Barbour releasing prison trustee Michael Graham, from his "life sentence" (Graham worked at the governor's mansion).  Graham was sentenced to life in prison after blowing away Adrienne Klasky,  his ex-wife after encountering her at a traffic light some years after their divorce.  However, Gov. Barbour liked Graham so much, he set him free.

(But we do bring good news.)   Unlike two former judges from Luzerne County PA; California judges haven't directly financially benefited from children. 

The problems which exist in California family court are legendary.  Sadly, the same old people are relied upon for solutions.   It's not working.

We have no idea whether Judge George was made aware of either our request or recommendations listed on the page for San Diego.

We have no personal stake in Family Court, or animosity to the current Supervising Judge of San Diego Family Court.  It's just that someone as unaware of San Diego's painful history, as Judge Alksne demonstrated she is, remains the best example of a bad example of who should serve on the commission.

Personally, we believe outside of the courtroom, Judge Alksne to be a very warm individual.   However, as the Elkins Task Force asked for input, then the first order of business is to address input received.  Or, as a wise friend once remarked,

                "If you always do what you always did - you'll always get what you always got."

Because Chief Justice Ronald George has been in office and removed to a large degree,  from the stark reality of the abject failure of family court, change will only begin when people who are not part of the problem, have input.

We remind Judge George although California is a, "no fault" state, judges by largely, ex-prosecutors looking for blame.  Blame arrives via custody evaluators, therapists, and police officers not doing their job.  Ergo this site was created for the express purpose of education for California's top judge.  We hope to hear from Chief George, and our sincere hope he is not shielded from it by countless intermediaries.

Personally, my request to speak to the Task Force stemmed from the three-fold frustration of:

1.  San Diego judges continuing to order expensive services of individuals who have been exposed in print and television since 2001 as fakes;  (See news video, below);

2.  Indifferent County Counsel chief, John Sansone who, since 2001, has refused to act on behalf of family court litigants, as authorized via Family Code section 7507;  (making the case for term limits) and

3.  Every San Diego DA since 2001, continuing with DA Bonnie Dumanis who remains completely non-responsive to calls and letters for appointments to address this and other issues.  Her assistant, Terrie Gonzalez:  619-531-3522 neither returns calls or emails.   Our tax dollars at work?

How does this impact all Californians?  Dumanis also sits on policy making boards for the State of California.  Is there good news?

Please turn to the Problems Page for specifics.

The Elkins Task Force created the possibility of revolutionizing family court, started off wrong by inviting the public apply, and then refusing the public a seat at the table, after it was created by long-married, genuinely interested in solutions, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George, who unfortunately, is surrounded by those who job it is to make sure he does not hear discordant voices or digest troublesome cases from judges who continue to rely on dubious experts; including those outed by media.