SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF
FOR THE
JUVENILE DIVISION
In pro per
IN THE MATTER(S) OF: ) Juvenile Case No(s)
)
XXXXXXXXXX , DOB 02/vvvvv ) JDVVVV
XXXXXXXXXX, DOB 05/vvvvv ) JDVVVV XXXXXXXXXXX, DOB 12/vvvvv ) JDVVVV2
XXXXXX DOB 09/vvvvv ) JDVVVVV
) DEPARTMENT VVV
) MOTION FOR ORDER
Juveniles
) PURSUANT
TO W&I SECT. 370
I
I, VVVVVVVVVVVV the defendant in the above entitled matter
hereby move that the above named court to suspend and/or vacate its order of
July 30, 1VV9 for psychological evaluations of the mother/defendant.
II
THE COURT
ERRORED IN INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE IN
ORDERING A
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF DEFENDANT
On August vvvvvvv the above entitled court
entered a order in the above entitled matter stating “Two Psychological evaluations have been ordered by the Court for Mrsxxxx in order to assess her capacity to parent and
capacity to utilize reunification services”, pursuant to California Welfare
and Institutions Code Sections 370 and 741. Nowhere in the aforementioned code
sections does it state the court may evaluate the parent or guardian. It only states the minors may be evaluated in
order to assist in determining appropriate treatment. By the courts erroneous
application of these sections created a order which
only applies to minors. Therefore, this
court acted in excess of its jurisdiction (see CEB writs and appeals on
jurisdiction). When a court acts in
excess of its jurisdiction in erroneous order, it looses its power to order. This court must vacate its order as it is now
appears (see attached Exhibit 1)
III
PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATIONS ARE AN UNWARRANTED
INVASION
OF PRIVACY PRIOR TO SUSTAINING THE PETITION AT THE JURISDICTIONAL HEARING
In Laurie S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 195, a juvenile proceeding in which the Department of Social Services sought to have a four‑month‑old infant declared a dependent of the court, the Department requested that the mother undergo a psychological evaluation by an expert witness under Evidence Code section 730 in order to prove that the minor was at risk of physical harm or neglect due to the mother's mental illness. The juvenile court authorized for the psychological evaluation and ordered the mother to cooperate. The mother petitioned the court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, claiming that the order requiring her to submit to a psychological evaluation violated her privacy rights. The Department of social Services responded to the mother's petition by arguing that a psychological evaluation was "necessary to assist the court in determining the current risk of future injury that [the mother] poses to [her minor daughter]" and that the court has inherent authority to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation where the parent's mental state is in issue because the state's interest in detecting and preventing child abuse outweighs any invasion of the of the parent's privacy. (26 Cal.App.4th at pp. 199‑201.)
The Court of appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order requiring the mother to submit to a psychological examination. The court held that, at the pre-jurisdictional stage, an allegation by the county social services department that a parent is mentally ill or the fact of mental illness alone does not justify a psychological examination of that parent. (26 Cal.App4th at p. 202.) By denying the allegation in the petition, the court observed, the parent does not tender his or her mental state in issue.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that in enacting dependency law, it was the intent of the Legislature "to provide maximum protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to protect children who are at risk of that harm." (26 Calliope.4th at p. 199.) At the same time, the court recognized that the interest of the state in protecting children must be weighed against the important liberty and privacy interests of a parent:
“The right to privacy and to be let alone by the government in "the private realm of
family life" is among the basic values of ordered liberty. (Prince v. Commonwealth
of
After carefully weighing these important personal liberty and state interest, the court held as follows:
“Only after a finding that a child is at risk, and assumption of jurisdiction over
the child, do parent's liberty and privacy interest yield to the demonstrated need
of child protection. At that stage, where the aim is to reunify parent and child,
expert opinion on the cause and extent of mental illness may be required to
ascertain which services will eliminate the conditions leading to dependency.
(26 Calliope.4th at pp. 202‑203.)”
The Court must suspend its order for the defendant to have two
psychological evaluations.
IV
BY
ISSUANCE OF THE COURTS ORDER FOR TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATIONS
OF THE DEFENDANT THIS COURT
CLEARLY
VIOLATED THE DEFENDANTS
CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS
The use of two court ordered psychological evaluations which could be
used as bypass evaluations, can greatly prejudice the defendants case prior to
the court sustaining the petition at a jurisdictional hearing. This would clearly violate the defendants
constitutionally protected rights of self incrimination and due process of law
before a protected liberty interest can be taken or interfered with (see Constitutional
Amendments 5 and 14) (see Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454(1981) also see Laurie
S. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 195). Because this matter has been set for a
contested jurisdictional hearing on
Every invasion of a protected right or liberty creates a separate and
distinct claim against the county and state (see Brown v. San Joaquin 601 F. Supp.
653 (1985) also see City of
V
REQUEST
FOR ORDER
Defendant hear by moves the court to order to vacate and or to suspend
the courts prior order in the above entitled matter for two psychological
evaluations until further notice of this court.
VI
DECLARATION
I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx am
the defendant in the above entitled matter, I am over the age of twenty one, I
am a citizen of the
__________________________________________
___________________, Defendant
In Pro Per