Report 2009-109 Recommendation 20 Responses
Report 2009-109: Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts: Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules (Release Date: January 2011)
Recommendation #20 To: Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
To verify that its private mediator and evaluator panel members meet the minimum qualifications and training requirements before appointment, the Sacramento family court should reinstate its local rules for private mediators and evaluators to provide a minimum of three references, and for private evaluators to provide a statement that they have read the court's evaluator guidelines.
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015
The Court already verifies that private evaluators meet the minimum qualifications and training requirements through the use of Judicial Council form FL-326. The Court also verifies the training and qualification requirements of private mediators before their appointment through use of Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.
- Estimated Completion Date:
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Resolved
Given the time that has passed since the State Auditor made this recommendation, it is likely that the private mediator and evaluator panels' membership has changed. In addition, as the Sacramento family court noted in its response, it assesses private mediators' and evaluators' qualifications before appointment. As such, this recommendation is not applicable at this time.
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014
The Court already verifies that private evaluators meet the minimum qualifications and training requirements through the use of Judicial Council form FL-326. The Court also verifies the training and qualification requirements of private mediators before their appointment through use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013
The Court already verifies that private evaluators meet the minimum qualifications and training requirements through the use of Judicial Council form FL-326. The Court also verifies the training and qualification requirements of private mediators before their appointment through use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.
- Estimated Completion Date:
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013
The Court already verifies that private evaluators meet the minimum qualifications and training requirements through the use of Judicial Council form FL-326. The Court also verifies the training and qualification requirements of private mediators before their appointment through use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012
As stated in the Court's letter of January 7, 2011, Judicial Council form FL-322 obviates the need to implement this recommendation.
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
All Recommendations in 2009-109
Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.