Meeting Information

Audit_Oversight

I.          CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA CHANGES                                                                 

The meeting was called to order at 10:05. The agenda was approved with the change of adding a discussion of an RSVP mechanism at the end of the meeting agenda.    

II.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes from the June 12, 2009 meeting were approved.   

III.    BUSINESS

A. Recommendations Related to the Courts

Gap 1: Risk Assessment

Rec. I.6. Develop a written protocol to include the Police Department and the Courts for the issuance of EPOs.

Ms. Williams has been trying to set up a dialogue between the Police Department and the Courts on this issue for some time. Both the Court and the Police Department have their own internal written protocols for EPOs, but there is not a protocol for communication between the two agencies when there are problems. There has been a meeting/training of the primary EPO bench officers recently.  This group developed a list of issues, such as the consistency of questions asked by bench officers of police officers. Ms. Williams has updates to provide to bench officers but will wait until the meeting between the Court and the Police Department occurs to ensure that it’s inclusive of any decisions reached.

Ms. Cross raised the issue of mutual EPOs. Police officers are challenged with determining a primary aggressor in the field, and may issue a mutual EPO if this determination cannot be made.  There are problems with this, especially in cases where no arrest is made. Capt. Ehrlich stated that training would be needed to inform officers that if there is an EPO, there should also be an arrest made.

Rec. I.7. Recommend mandatory training on domestic violence and related issues for all judges and commissioners who are assigned to issue EPOs.

Though the Committee understands that there is no state law mandating training for judges, some members wondered if there could be a local policy created.  Ms. Williams informed the group that the Court offers one domestic violence training annually, which is put on by Judge Morgan for all judges. This is an overview of domestic violence, though it does not currently include information about EPOs. Ms. Williams will bring this curriculum amendment back to Judge Morgan for consideration. However, this training occurs at 850 Bryant and focuses on criminal judges, and Ms. Williams cannot mandate any part of that training. The Committee was interested in attendance at this annual training, and Ms. Williams agreed to check with Judge Morgan on this issue.

At Family Court, all bench officers attend at least 1-2 trainings annually, and it is strongly encouraged that all new judges attend domestic violence training. Ms. Williams can not recall a bench officer in the last 10 years that did not attend specialized domestic violence training. Ms. Cross suggested that Family Court stagger the training of new judges to ensure that the information doesn’t get lost in the jumble of the many trainings a new judge receives. 

The Committee wondered what the gap in training attendance actually is. There are 51 judges and 13 commissioners in the Superior Court, but it is unclear how many have received training about domestic violence. Many criminal court judges did a circuit in family court, meaning they received the training there. 

Mr. Theisen expressed concern about those judges that, as is their right, refuse any training. This is rare, but the group strategized ways to entice or encourage judges who need training to attend.  Additionally, the group wondered about training for Pro Tems (lawyers sworn as Judges and used when the calendar is backlogged). Ms. Williams is herself a Pro Tem and received extensive training prior to taking the bench. In addition, all attorney Pro Tems used on the Domestic Violence calendars have received training on domestic violence issues. There has not been any negative feedback about these individuals recently.  

Rec. III.3. Ensure safe access and waiting areas for victims and their children at the Hall of Justice, particularly in regards to the DVRU and Department 15.

The Committee clarified that this applies primarily in cases where a victim has not been in contact with Victim Services or another victim advocate, and thus is unaware of safety issues at the Hall, such as arriving early to get through the security line, and waiting at the Victim Services office prior to the hearing. The Committee discussed whether a sign on the court room door directing victims to Victim Services would be useful, but members thought that the sign may not be neutral (would need a place for defendants to go as well) and also that defendants may go to Victim Services as well, making it less safe.

The issue of safety in the security line at the Hall has been raised by the Justice and Courage Oversight Panel in meetings with both the Sheriff and the former Chief, and out of those meetings, the Sheriff has assigned staff operating the security line to be more aware of the issues. However, community members are not always seeing this happening, and there is still some concern for victim safety in entering the building.

At the Civil Courthouse, judges hold respondents for 15 minutes after a hearing, allowing the petitioner time to leave the building in safety.  Ms. Williams will suggest this practice to the criminal judges.  Additionally, the Civil Court has an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s deputies to provide escort to domestic violence victims. Resource constraints may keep this from being a feasible arrangement at the Hall.

Rec. IV.1a. Enhance communication between criminal justice system agencies by developing written protocols on communication between criminal court and family court, including updated technological communication, such as access to all court-related computer networks.

The Family Court and APD have developed a protocol to inform the Court if a respondent has a criminal order to attend a BIP.  Family Court has access to CLETS and other court-related computer systems.

Local Rule 19 is a written protocol of communication between the Criminal and Civil Courts.  It was drafted in 2005 and was updated in 2008.  The Domestic Violence Court Committee revised it recently, but not in time for approval into the local rule, which only happens in January and June.  Thus, these most recent revisions will be included as of July 2010.

The issue of direct entry of restraining orders into CLETS was raised, as the current practice is that the Police Department receives hard copies of the orders and must do the data entry themselves, which can cause delays and backlogs.  Ms. Williams indicated that this resource allocation issue is one for the Presiding Judge and Chief to discuss and decide upon.  The Superior Court has a San Francisco restraining order database, which was designed to be compatible with CLETS interface (though the audit trail required by DOJ is too cumbersome to make direct interface feasible at this time), that the court clerks enter restraining orders into immediately. They would like the Police Department to have access to this database, but there have been IT problems on the Police Department’s side.  Juvenile Probation, Adult Probation, and HSA all have access to this system already.  Generally, criminal protective orders, temporary restraining orders, and restraining orders after hearing, as well as modifications and terminations, are all entered within 2 days of issuance. The technological compatibility issue should be raised with the Chief soon to facilitate Police Department access to this system, which would eliminate the duplication of entry and delays. Also, the Police Department could use this database for their own entry of orders.  

Gap 4: Batterer Accountability

Rec. 1. Create a San Francisco Domestic Violence Court Benchbook that outlines courtroom procedures for domestic violence cases, including handling arraignments, probation reviews, and Motions to Revoke, as well as inter-court communications.

This has been completed and was distributed to bench officers this year.

[Note: Moved to “Completed” in Matrix.]

Rec. 2. Recommend to the Judicial Council to update the existing statewide Domestic Violence Benchbook, and recommend inclusion of information regarding domestic violence probation and the monitoring of defendants.

There was a new Judicial Council Benchbook released in 2009.  It did not include information on monitoring defendants.  The AOC Guidelines of 2008 has extensive information on monitoring, which was vetted by the community before its release and after.  In community meetings, there were approximately 3 or 4 places that the courts identified gaps in compliance, out of 150 recommendations, and they are working with APD to correct these.

[Note: Moved to “Completed” in Matrix.]

Rec. 3. Ensure courtroom access to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) and the Civil Court computer system by select court personnel, e.g., court clerk, court probation officer, and provide training to clerks on the standardization of court records.

The Criminal Court has access to CLETS, though Judge Morgan, as a judicial officer, cannot go onto the system on her own. The DA has access and can provide the necessary information. Judge Morgan has access to Civil Court records, and can search these when needed. 

Family Court is required to run a CLETS check on all domestic violence cases. There is an extensive statutory scheme which delineates what information may be provided to the bench officer. In short, the clerk can only report to the judge on violent activity and convictions. The statute does not require the judges to inform the litigants that the CLETS report exists. The Court informs the Sheriff of any outstanding warrants. If the warrant is for a low-level crime, the judge will proceed with the hearing prior to the arrest.  If it is for a serious infraction (such as domestic violence), the Sheriff’s deputies will arrest the respondent immediately, and the hearing will be rescheduled. There was some concern by Committee members about the practice of arresting prior to the hearing, if the matter is not put over, and instead the judge rule in the absence of the respondent. For example, what if the victim has a warrant for arrest, but also needs protection from an abuser? In Dependency Court and Delinquency Court, there is a right to attend hearings, even if the respondent is in custody. There is no right to attend in Family Court.   

[Note: Moved to “Completed” in Matrix.]

Rec. 7. Recommend that judges assigned to domestic violence court receive domestic violence training prior to taking over in Department 15, to include training by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges when possible.

This has been addressed in Family Court through training practices (discussed above). In Criminal Court, there is an informal understanding that new judges assigned to Department 15 either have extensive knowledge of domestic violence through serving on in Family Court, or take the necessary training. However, there is no formal structure to this informal understanding.

[Note: Moved to “Completed” in Matrix.]

Rec. 11.  Develop a program, in conjunction with the Adult Probation Department and community based advocacy programs, for rigorous batterer intervention program oversight, including re-certification and training.

In general, APD has greatly revised and updated its procedures in this area.  The Courts were involved, and Judge Morgan has attended a training on developing best practices for BIPs. The Courts are satisfied with their status in this recommendation.

Rec. 13. Create additional linkages, communications, and accountability between court, victims, batterer intervention programs, the community-based advocacy community, and children’s services through standing meetings, a court-watch program, or other initiatives to be developed.

Judge Morgan has worked with APD on many of these issues. For example, the Domestic Violence Court Committee meets monthly, and invites the community to this meeting twice each year.  The courts are represented at the quarterly Family Violence Council meetings, as well as in the Safe Havens project.

Rec. 14. Refurbish Department 15 and devote adequate resources to the dedicated domestic violence court (including personnel, technological resources, and safe waiting places for victims).

Department 15 has been refurbished as much as funding and resources will allow.  The Domestic Violence Court has one dedicated clerk and Judge Morgan has full computer access.  Ms. Williams noted that the courts stopped any facilities projects for this year and next due to budget cuts. 

Rec. 17.  Ensure that judges in domestic violence court have necessary information about batterer intervention programs (e.g., location, cost for defendants, specialized groups, language access, etc.).

According to Ms. Williams, because APD makes the appropriate referrals to BIPs after meeting with probationers, Judge Morgan does not see a need to have detailed information about each program. In Family Court, they are making an effort to increase the connection between the court and APD.  Family Court does not often order a respondent to attend a BIP.  If it is a serious offense, there is often a criminal case, where the BIP will be ordered. This may be preferable, as the Family Court does not have a mechanism for enforcing attendance at a BIP like the Criminal Court does, sending the wrong message to batterers (i.e., you can get away with not attending). Instead of ordering attendance at BIPs, judges often “strongly recommend.” There used to be a non-violent parenting program through Kids Turn that judges often referred respondents to, but it no longer exists. Supervised visitation programs would like to have services for both the petitioner and respondent, and discussions with APD are in the works to connect BIPs with visitation services. Commissioner Slabach worked extensively on a non-violent parenting curriculum and worked with APD on its inclusion into the BIP curriculum. Lastly, the Family Court has bi-monthly brown bag lunch gatherings with community providers to inform judges and staff about specific issues.  The BIP providers attended one such lunch in the past.

Action Steps:

Claire Williams –

• Recommend to Judge Morgan that information regarding EPOs be included in her annual domestic violence training for judges.
• Ask Judge Morgan about the attendance rate at her annual training.
• Suggest to Judge Morgan that the Criminal Court adopt the Family Court’s practice of holding respondents/defendants for 15 minutes after a hearing to allow the victim/petitioner time to leave the building in safety.

Committee –

• Inquire whether the Sheriff’s informal practice of escorting victims at Family Court is feasible at Criminal Court.
• Recommend that the Justice and Courage Oversight Panel raise the issue of CLETS entry and access to the Courts’ restraining order database with the Chief.

B. RSVP Discussion

The Committee agreed that members will inform Ms. Marshall if they will be unable to attend the monthly meeting.

IV.    PUBLIC COMMENT   

Ms. Marshall reminded the Committee that the next Committee meeting has been rescheduled to allow members to attend the Justice and Courage Oversight Panel retreat on Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 9:00 am – 2:00 pm. An agenda for the retreat will be distributed soon. 

V.       ADJOURNMENT      

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am.  The next meeting is October 7, 2009.