>Audit of Family Courts

>

Prodded by Sen. Mark Leno and other lawmakers, the state Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted to investigate the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.

The audit will focus on the use, and potential misuse, of court-appointed specialists in family-law disputes, such as mediators, investigators and therapists.

Critics say such appointees can form incestuous and incompetent networks more concerned with generating fees than helping children through painful custody fights.

Marin and Sacramento counties were chosen for the audit because of the number of litigants reporting problems and filing complaints.

Full Article and Source:
State orders audit of Marin family court

Audit of Family Courts

Prodded by Sen. Mark Leno and other lawmakers, the state Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted to investigate the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.

The audit will focus on the use, and potential misuse, of court-appointed specialists in family-law disputes, such as mediators, investigators and therapists.

Critics say such appointees can form incestuous and incompetent networks more concerned with generating fees than helping children through painful custody fights.

Marin and Sacramento counties were chosen for the audit because of the number of litigants reporting problems and filing complaints.

Full Article and Source:
State orders audit of Marin family court

>Editorial Critical of Report

>

Grand jury criticism of little-known county agency is itself open to some criticism

An Orange County Register editorial

Excerpts:

Most Orange County residents probably know little or nothing about the county’s public administrator/public guardian. So it is odd to have seen this obscure office the subject of various headlines after the Orange County grand jury issued two scathing reports about management procedures there.

Because of the scathing tone of the reports and the nature of the work, which deals with the government’s handling of personal assets, we expected the investigation to be filled with allegations of abuse. Instead, the reports focus on detailed complaints about the agency’s management structure.

We’re not usually given to accepting the “political vendetta” argument, but we do find some things fishy about the double-barreled reports, which complain about excessive management growth, pension spiking and excessively large caseloads by conservators responsible for handling the assets of the clients. For starters, we can’t figure out why the grand jury took the unusual step of releasing a second report before the legal deadline had expired for Mr. Williams to respond to the first one.

But how could anything have changed even before the deadline had expired to even respond to the allegations? The second report, which supposedly contained new information, read to us like a rehashing of the first report. Our guess is the grand jury received a leaked copy of Mr. Williams’ initial rebuttal to the Board of Supervisors, and lashed out again because they didn’t like that he disputed each of their recommendations.

Full Article and Source:
Editorial: The watchdog vs. the guardian

See also:
Senior Tsunami

Egregious Mismanagement at Public Guardian’s Office

Editorial Critical of Report

Grand jury criticism of little-known county agency is itself open to some criticism

An Orange County Register editorial

Excerpts:

Most Orange County residents probably know little or nothing about the county’s public administrator/public guardian. So it is odd to have seen this obscure office the subject of various headlines after the Orange County grand jury issued two scathing reports about management procedures there.

Because of the scathing tone of the reports and the nature of the work, which deals with the government’s handling of personal assets, we expected the investigation to be filled with allegations of abuse. Instead, the reports focus on detailed complaints about the agency’s management structure.

We’re not usually given to accepting the “political vendetta” argument, but we do find some things fishy about the double-barreled reports, which complain about excessive management growth, pension spiking and excessively large caseloads by conservators responsible for handling the assets of the clients. For starters, we can’t figure out why the grand jury took the unusual step of releasing a second report before the legal deadline had expired for Mr. Williams to respond to the first one.

But how could anything have changed even before the deadline had expired to even respond to the allegations? The second report, which supposedly contained new information, read to us like a rehashing of the first report. Our guess is the grand jury received a leaked copy of Mr. Williams’ initial rebuttal to the Board of Supervisors, and lashed out again because they didn’t like that he disputed each of their recommendations.

Full Article and Source:
Editorial: The watchdog vs. the guardian

See also:
Senior Tsunami

Egregious Mismanagement at Public Guardian’s Office

Senior Tsunami

With Los Angeles County facing a “senior tsunami” in the decades ahead, county officials are not adequately prepared to deal with the explosion in demand for senior services and a growing rate of physical and financial crimes against the elderly, the civil grand jury warns in a new report.

As baby boomers age, the county’s senior population is expected to double from 1.6 million today to 3 million by 2030, placing increasing pressure on the nearly 100 programs in 24 county departments that provide services to seniors and adults with disabilities, according to county data.

“This pending `senior tsunami’ will dramatically impact the need for senior services for elders,” grand jurors wrote. “This civil grand jury investigation shows the county is not adequately prepared as the population ages for the significant increase in demand for elder abuse prevention programs and services.”

Also with the rise in the senior population has come a big jump in crimes targeting the elderly.

Full Article and Source:
LA. County grand jury issues `senior tsunami’ warning

See also:
Egregious Mismanagement at Public Guardian’s Office

>Senior Tsunami

>

With Los Angeles County facing a “senior tsunami” in the decades ahead, county officials are not adequately prepared to deal with the explosion in demand for senior services and a growing rate of physical and financial crimes against the elderly, the civil grand jury warns in a new report.

As baby boomers age, the county’s senior population is expected to double from 1.6 million today to 3 million by 2030, placing increasing pressure on the nearly 100 programs in 24 county departments that provide services to seniors and adults with disabilities, according to county data.

“This pending `senior tsunami’ will dramatically impact the need for senior services for elders,” grand jurors wrote. “This civil grand jury investigation shows the county is not adequately prepared as the population ages for the significant increase in demand for elder abuse prevention programs and services.”

Also with the rise in the senior population has come a big jump in crimes targeting the elderly.

Full Article and Source:
LA. County grand jury issues `senior tsunami’ warning

See also:
Egregious Mismanagement at Public Guardian’s Office

Egregious Mismanagement at Public Guardian’s Office

The Orange County grand jury issued a scathing report criticizing the public administrator/public guardian’s office for “egregious” mismanagement, including questionable promotions that cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

The report, the jurors’ second on the subject, concluded “that a complete restructuring” of the office was necessary.

Jury foreman Jim Perez: “It was outrageous behavior.”

The public administrator settles the estates of the deceased; the public guardian takes care of people under legal conservatorship. The department handles estates valued at more than $38 million each year, according to the report.

In a move to reduce county costs, the office of the public guardian was split from the Health Care Agency in 2005 and combined with the public administrator.

But instead of saving money, the first grand jury report said, costs went up because of additional management salaries. Staffing levels have risen from seven managers for 67 employees at a cost of $529,796 to 10 managers for the same number of employees at $1.04 million.

Jurors intended to issue only one report on the agency. But within two weeks of its release in May, they got a “significant” number of calls and letters informing them that not only had management not changed, but that the situation had worsened.

Full Article and Source:
O.C. grand jury again criticizes public administrator/public guardian’s office

>Egregious Mismanagement at Public Guardian’s Office

>

The Orange County grand jury issued a scathing report criticizing the public administrator/public guardian’s office for “egregious” mismanagement, including questionable promotions that cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

The report, the jurors’ second on the subject, concluded “that a complete restructuring” of the office was necessary.

Jury foreman Jim Perez: “It was outrageous behavior.”

The public administrator settles the estates of the deceased; the public guardian takes care of people under legal conservatorship. The department handles estates valued at more than $38 million each year, according to the report.

In a move to reduce county costs, the office of the public guardian was split from the Health Care Agency in 2005 and combined with the public administrator.

But instead of saving money, the first grand jury report said, costs went up because of additional management salaries. Staffing levels have risen from seven managers for 67 employees at a cost of $529,796 to 10 managers for the same number of employees at $1.04 million.

Jurors intended to issue only one report on the agency. But within two weeks of its release in May, they got a “significant” number of calls and letters informing them that not only had management not changed, but that the situation had worsened.

Full Article and Source:
O.C. grand jury again criticizes public administrator/public guardian’s office

DCFS Often Fails Deadline

State auditors say the Illinois agency responsible for protecting children often fails to meet the deadline for a follow-up review of a child’s death.

The review comes after the Department of Children and Family Services’ formal investigation of possible child-abuse deaths. The goal is to see if there was any way to prevent the death and to improve handling of abuse cases.

DCFS is supposed to conduct a review within 90 days of the formal investigation being completed.

But the auditor general’s office reported that the average wait was 200 days after the child died. In one case, the follow-up review took well over a year – 496 days.

DCFS says a lack of staff contributed to the problem.

Source:
Ill. child-welfare agency slow to review deaths

See also:
Public Guardian Speaks Out

>DCFS Often Fails Deadline

>

State auditors say the Illinois agency responsible for protecting children often fails to meet the deadline for a follow-up review of a child’s death.

The review comes after the Department of Children and Family Services’ formal investigation of possible child-abuse deaths. The goal is to see if there was any way to prevent the death and to improve handling of abuse cases.

DCFS is supposed to conduct a review within 90 days of the formal investigation being completed.

But the auditor general’s office reported that the average wait was 200 days after the child died. In one case, the follow-up review took well over a year – 496 days.

DCFS says a lack of staff contributed to the problem.

Source:
Ill. child-welfare agency slow to review deaths

See also:
Public Guardian Speaks Out