They can take these actions based on rumor, innuendo and hearsay. Some neighbor, acquaintance or even a stranger may have reported bad things about your family. It could be initiated from an anonymous tip, or an adversary. There is no requirement for concrete evidence of any wrongdoing.

You cannot post bail to get the family member returned. Ultimately, you are entitled to a court hearing. At the first hearing the Court will start with the presumption that everything written in the report by government agents is true. At this hearing you have no right to present evidence.

The government agency and/or the Court may prevent you from visiting or talking to those they took away.

You do have a right to a trial. This may occur months after the government took your family member. At this trial, however, hearsay statements used against your family are generally admitted, and the burden of proof is on you to prove them untrue.

There is no right to a jury trial. You are provided with a judge who works in a special court. The judge regularly works with the government agency that started the action. If that agency does not like the judge because the judge has a reputation for ruling against the agency, the agency attorney’s can exercise their right in each case to exclude that judge from hearing the matter. Through this, the agency effectively excludes these judges from hearing any cases, and these judges are then generally transferred to another type of court.

The court may appoint an attorney to represent you, but this attorney is dependent on the judge in this court for such appointments. The attorney may work exclusively for this court.

You can complain to the news media about what is happening to your family. However, the court and the government agency have the protection of secrecy and confidentiality. The press normally does not have access to records, and the government officials involved will normally refuse to communicate concerning an ongoing case. If you are persistent in your complaints, the government agency may pursue a restraining order to silence you or they may retaliate by restricting or eliminating any family visits that may have been previously granted.

Normally there is no remedy for government errors. Immunity laws usually protect the government agents from any civil liability. The government provides no restitution and no compensation for injury and damages.

The government agency I am referring to exists in one fashion or another throughout the United States. In California it is called the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). It often is assisted by local law enforcement. The court created to hear its cases is known as Children’s Court. The family members taken away are children. When an allegation involves only one child, often the DCFS will remove all the children. The justification given for removal of the children is that either the parents or guardians are not protecting a child or they are endangering a child.

When making a decision to remove children, the DCFS does not consider or evaluate the consequential damage done to children and their families. They don’t consider the psychological trauma caused to the children by the removal. They give no consideration to the consequences of the removal to the family structure. If and when the children are returned, parents may have lost their authority to set family rules.

Normally parents hold their family and their children as the most important part of their lives. The very threat of removal of a child from one’s home is stressful and can lead to physical defense of the family. Often the DCFS portrays such a reaction as dangerous and encompasses their interpretation of the reaction in supporting reports for the removal of the children.

In the mid 70’s there were only a couple of courts in Los Angeles that handled Children’s court cases. Today, there are many, including an entire court house dedicated to Children’s Court. The proliferation of Children’s Court is not due to a decline in parenting skills. It is due to ever-expanding government imposed standards, increased scrutiny and the innate nature of bureaucracy to expand.

Laws were created in response to reports of children being tortured, being locked in closets and other horror stories. But knee jerk laws can often come back and hit you where it hurts. Today, most Children’s court cases are based on what is perceived as poor parenting. The way the DCFS and Children’s court interpret state laws allows most families at some point to be subject to DCFS intervention.

There are many good caring people who work for the DCFS and Children’s Court. There are also those who themselves have questionable parenting skills and exercise poor judgment. There are questions about them being properly trained, imposing their personal views on what parents should or should not do, and potential bias caused by something happening in their own lives.

There are thousands of things a parent might do that the DCFS believes are grounds to remove children.  It might be a beating causing major trauma, molestation, drug use or an arrest. It might be an unacceptable spanking, yelling, or placing “unacceptable” restrictions on a child. It might be a one time mistake in judgment. It may be that your home is not up to acceptable standards or you are viewed as neglecting your children. Or it may be some tragedy such as an accident harming one of your children.

The rationale used by the DCFS for removal of children can be an allegation that you failed to protect a child from some other family member or friend, even if you do not live with the person and do not believe they committed the alleged offense.

By threatening to take away children, the DCFS can manipulate parents into signing agreements admitting things that are not true or agreeing to do a number of things that may place a great personal and economic burden on the parents.  The DCFS can then use the agreement against the parents either as an admission or as evidence of a breached promise.

The DCFS may go so far as to prohibit contact with someone they do not like. Even before going to court they may tell a parent that if they do not break up a relationship or allow a person to visit, they will remove the children.

The problems with Children’s Court and the DCFS are probably not going to be corrected by simple changes in the law. There are some state laws that seem to protect parents. The problem is how the laws are being interpreted.  A simple bruise from grabbing a child or a small bruise on the child’s rear end may be deemed a major life threatening incident. Yelling may be termed violent when there was no threat of violence in the yelling. A child may be injured at preschool and suffer a minor injury but unless the parents can prove the injury occurred there, the children may be removed. Asking a child to follow strict behavioral rules may be considered abuse.

It would seem that no matter what the laws, many of those employed by DCFS and Children’s court have their own views as to how a child should be raised.

The law imposes a requirement on the court to help reduce errors. The standard of proof required in Children’s court is clear and convincing evidence. This standard appears not to be applied the same way in Children’s court cases as it would in a normal civil case. It’s a bit hard to get clear and convincing evidence from hearsay. As a matter of practice, it is doubtful that judges in Children’s court really apply this standard of proof.

Most cases in Children’s court do not go to trial. Attorneys look to results. Parents want their children back. If there is any chance for return of the children, fighting the charges may delay the return of the children and motivate the DCFS to restrict contact. With perceived bias, even triable issues are rarely litigated. Often in an effort to preserve what is left of their family, parents will admit to charges of wrongdoing that are not true.

The removal of the children from their parents and guardians is really only half the story. The DCFS spends a lot of effort in obtaining jurisdiction, removing the children and placing them in foster care. Somewhere thereafter they seem to pay less attention to the welfare of the children.

A small percentage of abuses in foster care are reported to the press. The DCFS claims the need for secrecy and confidentiality to protect the children, but this secrecy does more to protect the DCFS and children’s court from bad publicity, public outrage and litigation than it does in protecting any abused child.

When children are taken away from their parents and other family members, they are either placed with foster parents or put in a foster parent facility. Under the guise of confidentiality, foster parents are not always given a complete history of the children they are given. They could therefore have children from more than one family in their care. One child might have a history of violence, drugs or sex abuse. Placing children from different backgrounds together may lead to children abusing other children.

Sometimes, the standards in the operation of the foster care facility are questionable. If scrutinized, some foster parents could have their own children removed.

Foster parents may be motivated by the payments they receive. To some it is a business. They take in as many children as they can and do the least amount of service. Foster parents face numerous limitations on how they manage foster children. It is unlikely that foster kids will be disciplined. More likely, a foster parent’s primary job is maintenance of the children until they are eighteen and on their own.

The foster care system is akin to placing children in storage until they legally become adults. It’s more a baby sitting program than a program designed to help children. In loving families, parents care about and help advance their child’s education. Parents want their children involved with sports and other extra curricular activities. Parents want their children to follow certain rules. Parents want their children to understand that poor behavior has consequences which include discipline. Parents want their children to find employment and succeed in life.

Statistics show that a large percentage of homeless people grew up in the foster care system.

The questions should be asked, is our Children’s court system doing more harm than good? Is the expense of maintaining the thousands of employees by the DCFS and the Children’s Court justified?

With few exceptions, most parents, even the ones who fall below most people’s standards of good parenting, still care more for their children than a stranger. Removing children from their parents and from their homes often breaks up family relationships and family bonds. Breaking these bonds will often leave children with no one to go to for help. Failure to have foster kids engaged in part time jobs or extracurricular activities hurt their development and decrease their ability to make it on their own.

Everyone can be critical of another person’s parenting skills. Perhaps we judge others too much. With the vast majority of parents whose children are taken away by DCFS, there is a bond between parent and child that is rarely matched by the intervention of a stranger.  Even in the most serious cases: the parent who hit their child, the parent who abused drugs, was arrested, or neglected their child there is still a bond of caring between parent and child.

The harm done to children by interfering with and breaking that bond may far outweigh the benefit of the relatively few children whose lives are improved as a result of foster care.  We would be better served if the DCFS and the Children’s Court had their jurisdiction limited to the most extreme cases of child abuse.

The minors can get their medical bills paid.  Parents can be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses.  Occasionally the court might allow some modest payment for something the child needs.  But parents are not entitled to the money.

The court will order a child’s money to be placed in a blocked account.  Another court order will be required to release the money.  Usually these accounts accrue only a small interest. The interest is subject to taxation.  The child is entitled to the entire sum of money on his eighteenth birthday.

Parents who are concerned about low interest rates and the release of the entire sum of money when the child becomes eighteen have few options.

One option they may be able to work out is the creation of an annuity for the child.  Basically, rather than receiving a cash settlement an insurance policy is purchased with the settlement proceeds.

An annuity can be set up so that a child receives payment over a number of years beyond the age of eighteen.  It can be designed to provide a college fund and block grant to the child after he has reached maturity.  The annuity may also provide the benefit of a much greater interest rate without tax liability.  Courts generally approve such agreements.

To further protect the interest of the child, the courts require its approval on a compromise & release to resolve the minor’s claim.  Injuries to minors tend to be treated more sympathetically by all parties.  Even the attorney for the minor will usually have a reduced fee.

Our contingency fee on representation of minors in personal injury claims is generally 25%.

Because of the backlog of cases and the priority of criminal over civil matters, civil cases are put on the back burner and may not reach trial until five years after they were originally filed.

In a effort to clear their calendars, courts will often sit hearings on the cases or even schedule the case for trial even though there is only a remote possibiolity that the case can actually be resolved. The result is that attorneys often have to appear in an over-crowded courtroom.  The attorney at the expense of the client may have to prepare documents for filing or even prepare for trial.  Because of court’s frustration in moving cases along, they will often charge an attorney monetary sanctions for not complying with a court rule or not being prepared to go to trial, even through the court itself was not prepared.  This means that an attorney may have to prepare for trial several different times.  He may have to rush to prepare to make sure all the witnesses and evidence are available.  Once this is done he may sit around in a courtroom for half the day only to find out that the case is being put off several months.

Pointing out problems is easy; finding a solution is difficult.  If we had more judges and more courtrooms, litigators could move more quickly.  Barring that, there is small claims court. In small claims a resolution of your claim may only take a couple of months.  You can sue for up to $7,500.00 without an attorney.  In view of the savings in time and money it may be well worth filing in small claims even though the actual damages are in excess of the $7,500.00 limit.

Worker’s compensation is a form of no-fault insurance paid for by employers. It provides limited coverage for employees who have work related injuries no matter who or what caused those injuries.

However, the insurance plan is not entirely free to the employees. The law prevents employees from suing their employers even when the employer is the cause of the injury. The law provides no compensation for pain and suffering and only partial compensation for loss of wages. Employee’s attorney fees are severely limited (usually to 15%). With a permanent injury there is some lump sum payment for disability and the opportunity to undergo retraining. But the employee has been compelled to give up substantial rights for a relatively small return.

Employers who complain about worker’s compensation rates might find themselves paying substantially more insurance premiums if they could be sued personally for injuries that were caused by work conditions. Also, because of the low attorney fees allowed on behalf of the employee (there is no cap for insurance company attorneys), there is a severe limit as to how much an attorney will do, and often employees go unrepresented because attorneys will not take on their cases.

The individuals and companies that profit most from worker’s compensation are the insurance companies (because insurance is universally required) and the doctors (because they get paid). Worker’s compensation benefits are rarely attractive to employees who must find the means to survive on a fraction of their income.

Nonetheless, it is still advisable for employees to retain counsel where permanent injury is involved. Because this type of compensation is dominated by insurance companies, employees may find that they are sent to doctors who have an economic interest in minimizing injuries and who may cut-off treatment prematurely and/or give a low disability rating. Employees do have some rights to see other doctors as well as obtain other evaluations. Their interests may best be served by consulting with an attorney.

The Power of Attorney for Health Care gives an individual you name certain rights to make decisions on your behalf when you are no longer able to make those decisions. Even so, you can still exercise some control by what statements are contained in the document. You can state your desire to refuse medical treatment that merely prolongs an inevitable death when the burden of such treatment outweighs the anticipated benefits; or you may be more restrictive and state you want treatment to continue unless you are in an irreversible coma; or, if you desire to hold on to life as long as possible, you can direct that you want to be kept alive by all means available.

The Power of Attorney may authorize another person to receive, review, and release all medical records; to execute documents; to refuse treatment; or to withdraw you as a patient from a hospital and to release the hospital from liability.

Additionally, you may state whether you want your body parts donated. You can give your agent power to dispose of your remains and to authorize an autopsy.

If the agent you select to act under the Power of Attorney is unable to do so, you can name alternates. You can also name the person you would like to be your conservator should that be necessary.

The Power of Attorney for Health Care provider may save your family money and relieve them of anxiety in trying to determine what your wishes actually are.

During the last several decades there have been many major changes in the law; however, in selecting a jury the attorney’s goals remain the same.

In getting the “right” jury, one major consideration is picking the right venue – where the trial will be held. Each courthouse has its own pool of potential jurors. A jury in Santa Monica is likely to have a much different racial, age and socio-economic makeup than that of central Los Angeles.

Indeed it has been said that the major mistake the prosecutors made in the O. J. Simpson trial was filing the case in Los Angeles rather than Santa Monica. The different makeup of the juries may also explain how, in the Rodney King case, a Ventura jury found the officers not guilty while a Los Angeles jury found them guilty.

One reality of life is that even reasonable minds differ in their observations and opinions regarding the same events. Jurors bring a lot of baggage with them into the jury box. Their life experiences is bound to color their decisions. Their view of the credibility of witnesses may be dependent on their own good or bad experiences and even on their own apprehensions or mistrusts.

In high profile cases these factors are complicated and compounded by an effort to select a jury unaware of the basic facts of the publicized case.

Because attorneys are aware of long-term effects of early decisions, courtroom maneuvers and jury selection can become a lengthy and expensive process. Yet, like most things we do in life, effort spent early in an endeavor may bear great rewards.

Sometimes the contract was signed only one week before the attorney had the opportunity to review it. Other times, the client is being threatened with a suit or needs to get out from under the contract and wants to know his rights.

It costs considerably more money to hire an attorney to untangle a person from an unwanted contract than it would have to hire him before the document was signed. Often, litigation becomes necessary. This usually costs several thousands of dollars and the outcome may still be unfavorable to the client.

Contracts are written for two primary reasons. One is to state all the terms of the oral agreement. The other is to anticipate all the things that could go wrong and place a party in the best possible position should something wrong happen.

This means that if you leave the drafting of the contract to others, the odds are the contract will favor the other side.

You should consult with a lawyer at an early stage in contract negotiations. Express your concerns and the basic terms of your contract. Have the attorney negotiate the terms for you.

Afterward, you may be able to file the contract away and give it little thought. But you will have the peace of mind in knowing that should a problem arise, the contract may be in your favor.