..,
THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF
IN AND FOR THE SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
|
Yvonne Xxxxxx, Petitioner, and Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, The Honorable Katherine Lucero, Judge., Real Party at Interest, Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children Services, et al. , Respondent |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Superior Court JD1xxxx |
I
SOCIAL WORKER FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL RELIVENT FACTS
SHOULD CREATE GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL OF ORDER TO TERMINAT
REUNIFICATION SERVICES
At the termination of reunification services hearing on xxxxxx xx, 2000, social worker failed to appraise the court in a factual manner. The social worker failed to properly assess the appropriateness of the previously parenting course for this matter [R.T.-10]. The mother did in fact complete a parenting course and the appropriateness of that parenting course has never been determined. The social worker stated that the mother took this parenting course and the petitioner was not given further referrals to parenting classes.
The social worker stated that the petitioner started services in November xx, 1999 but in fact the petitioner had been in the Mariposa inpatient facility in July to September of 1999 and in the PSAP program May to June 1999 [R.T.-8-9]. The social worker failed to notify the court of the petitioners successful completion of services at Mariposa.
Further, numerous documents, which support the successful completion of services, were never entered into the court record [see Exhibit A]. These documents include letters from Catholic Charities and Santa Clara Valley Department of Alcohol and Drug Services. These documents were willfully not submitted in to the court record by the social worker.
W&IC 361.5(a)(2) preclude an extension of family
reunification services because there was no substantial probability that the
minor would be returned home. This
statute is no an allowance for a social worker to manipulate evidence to meet
the clear and convincing evidence standard.
A county social services department, acting as a arm of the court in
the best interests of a minor in dependency proceedings, has a duty in
rendering its report and recommendation, to appraise the court of all relevant
facts and circumstances concerning the child
all the information necessary to choose the best path for the child from
among the available options. Masking the problem
Masking the problem does not
serve the best interest of any party.
When the social worker creates misleading evidence to meet the clear
and convincing evidence standard (as required by W&IC 366.22 (a)) puts the
trial court in a precarious position of creating erroneous orders. In re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th
1365 33,
SOCIAL WORKERS FALSE STATEMENTS AT HEARING ARE DEFINATE
GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL
OF COURTS ORDER OF TERMINATION OF REUNIFICATION SERVICES
The social worker stated that the petitioner was given a referral to parenting [R.T.-22] but Catholic Charities in fact does not provide parenting classes [see Exhibit B]. Further, Catholic Charities could not have told the social worker they have parenting classes as they do not exist in their program indicating the social worker clearly falsified the record so to prejudice the court for a erroneous decision with an order to terminate reunification services.
At hearing, Social Worker claimed
to have talked with the Psychiatrist, Dr. Ali Axxxxxxxx MD. [R.T. 20]. Dr. Ali Alxxxxxxxx MD. Clearly states he has
had no communication with the social worker except with two letters and he also
indicated that the social worker grossly misinterpreted her medication and
treatment of her mental health issues [see Exhibit C]. Again, the social worker has clearly
falsified the record so to prejudice the court for an erroneous decision with
an order to terminate reunification services [C.T.-257, 275]. The clear fact is that the social worker is
painting a picture of negativity to reduce the substantial probability that
Xxxxxx could not be returned to his mother in the next six months [C.T.-275]
to meet the required clear and convincing standard W&IC section 361.5
(a)(2). Armondo D. v. Superior Court
(1999) 71
The respondent clearly prejudices this court by creating an aura of a extremely detrimental parent [C.T. 247-285]. All the attached exhibits create another aura of a parent doing well with her services that was not allowed in the courtroom. Motivations for such action has been clearly recognized in the higher courts, FUNDING. An example of such is 42 U.S.C.A. section 679b. The fact that the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent case Calabretta v Floyd (August 26, 1999) where this court warned Congress that creating such financial incentives would and is creating problems. This matter clearly indicates that this problem does exist.
III
ASSISSTANT OF COUNSEL AT HEARING
Trial counsel failed to bring up any of the aforementioned issues, documentation or evidence. Counsel additionally failed to subpoena any witnesses that the petitioner clearly requested [see Exhibit D]. Trial counsel failed to call the petitioner to the witness stand to testify on her own behalf to clarify the record. The petitioner clearly asked the trial attorney to give testimony on her own behalf but was not allowed to testify and put the truth on the record.
Petitioner is entitled to a diligent advocate on her own behalf, a trained competent counsel to protect the petitioners liberty interests, People v Marsden (1970) 2 Cal 3d 118
IV
CONCLUSION
Because of the aforementioned, the petitioner suffers from an erroneous order of the court terminating her reunification. I hereby request that the Honorable Presiding Justice and Honorable Associate Justices order that reunification services be reinstated and dismiss the order setting the W&IC 366.26 hearing of July 17, 2000 or on the alternative remand this matter back for a new hearing on the termination of reunification services and further that appointment of new counsel be ordered to represent the petitioner.
V
DECLARATION
I, Yvonne Marie Xxxxxx am over the age of
18 years old and am a resident in
Dated this 23th day of April, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
Yvonne Xxxxxx, In Pro Per 2222 xxxxxxx Dr., |
Statutes
W&IC 361.5(a)(2) 2,4
W&IC 361.5 (a)(3)
..4
W&IC 366.21 (e) ..4
42 U.S.C.A. section 679b ..4,5
Cases
Dawnell D. v Superior Court (1999) .4
Calabretta v Floyd
(August 26, 1999)
.5
Armondo D. v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1011.................... 4
In re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th 1365 33, Cal. Rptr. 2d
225.............. 3
People v Marsden (1970) 2 Cal 3d 118........................................ 6