Xxxxx S. Xxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx, xx xxxxx

(xxx) xxx-xxxx

In Propria Persona

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF xxxxxxxx

JUVENILE DIVISION

DEPARTMENT xxx

 

In the matter of: XXXXX XXXXX, A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law, _______________________________XXXXX COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

XXXXX S. XXXXX,

Defendant,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: xxxxxx

 

MOTION TO RELIEVE MINOR'S COUNSEL PURSUANT TO:

WELFARE INSTITUTIONS CODE

§§ 317(c)(e)(f) & 317.5(a)(b)

& ARGUMENT, POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

I

I, Xxxxx S. Xxxxx am the defendant and movant in the above named matter, and comes now before the above named court to hear and grant this motion to relieve the minor, Xxxxx Xxxxx court appointed counsel, Mr. Mike Xxxxx[1] for cause. Movant has filed this motion previously, but now has new evidence that clearly establishes movant’s contentions (see exhibit “A” declaration of the minor Xxxxx Xxxxx). This new evidence reinforces movant’s claims so stated below (1-4). The fact being that this court and minor’s counsel labeled the prior motion as “theory” when in fact coupled with exhibit “A” gives credence to the following:

1)  Minor’s counsel has continually failed to follow requisite duties as a diligent advocate on behalf of the minor, in that minor’s counsel has failed to properly initiate any good faith investigations, interview any witnesses, failure to recognize issues in police reports & evaluations to the best interests of his client, and failure to investigate the needs of the minor beyond the scope of the Juvenile Court. See § 317(e)[2], (also see exhibit “A”).

2)  Failure of minor’s counsel investigate and to utilize and act upon reports and evaluations from local agencies, hospitals, medical and non-medical practitioners, or by child care custodians, in the manner described by § 1158 of the California Evidence Code. See § 317(f), (also see exhibit “A”).

3)  After the initial detention phase of this proceeding, it took nearly fourteen months before the minor’s counsel ever met with his client, from March 15, 1999, to April 27, 2000, and the minor reported this to her sibling (see exhibit “A”).

4)  Because of the aforementioned failures, minor’s counsel has continually caused a detriment to the minor by using as the only basis for his advocacy, the social workers reports & recommendations of which, was based on false statements of the minor, counsel’s client. This has resulted in minor’s counsel’s failure to support services that are required for his clients’ emotional well-being and future. See §§ 317(c) & 317.5(a), (see exhibit “A”).

II

ARGUMENT

POINTS & AUTHORITIES

 

A.

A PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO RAISE

ISSUES OF MONOR’S COUNSEL’S

COMPETENCY AT TRIAL COURT OR ON APPEAL

     “"Where the interests of two parties interweave, either party has standing to litigate issues that have a[n] impact upon the related interests. This is a matter of first party standing." (In re Patricia E. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [father and daughter had interest in both her welfare and the parent-child relationship so father could assert daughter's right to competent counsel].)”, (as cited in, In re Caitlin B. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1190. A parent has interwoven and over-lapping interests in regards to the parent-child relationship. (In re Caitlin B., Supra; In re Melissa S. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1046, 225 Cal.Rptr.195)).

 

B.

MINOR’S COUNSEL’S FAILURES HAVE

CAUSED SEVERE DETRIMENTS TO

THE MINOR AND MINOR’S FAMILY

    

      Minor’s counsel has failed to investigate, review records and reports concerning the minors credibility, and has laxly relied on the social worker’s reports and recommendations that are filled with the minor, Xxxxx Xxxxx “LIES”. Both the minor’s counsel and the social worker have failed this minor miserably in this aspect. The resulting detriments are a lack of visitation of which is crucial to reunification and thus denies our familial integrity. See U.S. Const. Amend I (also see exhibit “A”).

The minor’s “counsel shall investigate the interests of the minor beyond the scope of the juvenile proceeding and report to the court other interests of the minor that may need to be protected by the institution of other administrative or judicial proceedings”…See § 317(e). “A primary responsibility of any counsel appointed to represent a minor pursuant to this section shall be to advocate for the protection, safety and physical and emotional well-being of the minor”. See § 317(c). Is not the future of the minor a key and essential part of the foregoing, yet, minor’s counsel conveniently ignore and evade the minors serious problems that led to these proceedings as well as the minor’s wishes (see exhibit “A”). In the social workers report (signed, 9/6/00), pursuant to § 366.22, in a “Xxxxx County Mental Health, Comprehensive Assessment/Client Plan”, Dated 7/12/00, at page 2 (of 4), at the heading “Client’s Strengths and Challenges”, “Lies when in trouble, does not accept responsibility for her actions”… Defendant has continually emphasized this throughout these proceedings, yet the answer to the truth is presently before all parties and not even a mere mention in the social worker’s recommendations nor have there been any recommendations by minor’s counsel to alleviate this possible future demise of this minor. For many penal code sections make it a crime to willfully give false statements (under oath), or false information (as to a police officer). Rewarding a minor for a crime is contrary to any known public policy and lacks at a minimum any common sense.

 

C.

MINOR’S COUNSEL HAS FAILED

HIS FIDUCIARY DUTY TO HIS CLIENT

 

The foregoing inclusive, minor’s counsel has failed miserably at being the diligent advocate on behalf of his client (see People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 398, 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156),(also see exhibit “A”). Minor’s counsel’s failures are a breach of his fiduciary responsibility to his client and gives the appearance of professional misconduct (see Jackson v. State Bar (1979) 25 Cal.3d 398).

It is the responsibility of this Court to “exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of those persons subject to the judge’s direction and control” (see judicial Canon 3 (three)), in regard’s to this Court’s roll and responsibility of “Parens Patriae” in regards to the minor Xxxxx Xxxxx (In re Corey (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 813, 41 Cal.Rptr. 379), In this present matter counsel needs some direction or control (see exhibit “A”), and must be replaced.

    

III

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

     Because of the foregoing and resulting detrimental results, minor’s counsel must be relieved and replaced with an independent counsel that will represent the best interests of the minor as well as their future well-being, before it is to late.

 

 

 

 

DECLARATION

 

     I, Xxxxx S. Xxxxx, am the movant and defendant in this matter and declare that the foregoing is true and correct as to my own belief knowledge, that I am over the age of eighteen, am a resident of the County of Xxxxx.

     Executed this 12th Day of December, 2001. Executed at the County of Xxxxx, in the State of California.

 

                                       RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED!  

 

 

__________________________

                                     Xxxxx S. Xxxxx

Declarant/Movant/defendant

                                     In Propria Persona                  

 

    

       

       

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Hereinafter referred to as minor’s counsel.

[2] All statutory references are to California Welfare & Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.