• Advocacy

 
 

CJE Advocacy
 
Joint Legislative Audit Committee Request

As part of CJE’s 2008 focus of protecting children, and the rights of children while in the courts, we have identified an alarming number of critical gaps in how the California Family Courts deal with child custody disputes, allegations of physical and sexual child abuse, and domestic violence. In light of the seriousness of these issues, it is CJE’s opinion that an audit and evaluation of the California Family Courts by the California State Auditor is warranted.

Working closely with the office of Speaker Pro Tem Sally Lieber, CJE has developed a proposal to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee requesting an audit of the California Family Courts with respect to child custody disputes. This audit would be helpful in identifying inconsistencies in the application of domestic violence, child custody, and child abuse laws and processes within the state, and will bring clarity to issues the Legislature should address for the protection of parents and children of the state of California.

Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Sally Lieber has submitted a letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee requesting an audit of the California Family Courts with respect to child custody disputes. The next step in this process will be a public hearing in August at which the Joint Legislative Audit Committee will discuss the audit request and hear public testimony.

 

Judicial Performance Evaluations

We are taking our efforts to Sacramento! CJE is introducing the idea of a Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) program for California to our State legislators. JPE programs already exist in 19 other states and are generally popular among judges and voters alike where they have been established. To learn more about JPEs visit the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (University of Denver) online or click here to download a one-page pdf about CJE's advocacy work.

Representatives of the Center for Judicial Excellence have had productive meetings with the following individuals to discuss our proposed legislation:

  • Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata’s Consultant Shelley Curran
  • Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata’s Consultant Lindy Rose Graham
  • Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez’s General Counsel Fredericka McGee
  • Gene Wong, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
  • Drew Liebert, Chief Counsel, Assembly Judiciary Committee
  • Senator Dick Ackerman, Senate Minority Leader, Judiciary Committee member
  • Senator Tom Harman, Ranking Republican, Senate Judiciary Committee
  • Senator Carole Migden’s Legislative Director Laura Metune
  • Assemblymember Mark Leno and his Legislative Director Carlos Machado
  • Assemblymember Van Tran, Ranking Republican, Judiciary Committee
  • Assemblymember Jared Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma
  • Assemblymember Lloyd Levine’s Judiciary Committee staffer Greg Girvan
  • Assemblymember John Laird’s Consultant Janus Norman
  • Assemblymember Sally Lieber’s Principal Assistant Barry Steinhart
  • Donna Hershkowitz, Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs, Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts

We are encouraged by the positive feedback we’re receiving about developing a statewide Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) program for California, similar to those working in other states. Our preferred model for California’s JPE program is Colorado, where volunteer commissions at the state and local levels conduct evaluations, and the program is funded using revenue from traffic violations. CJE is currently focusing on building support for JPEs among diverse statewide organizations.

Basic Assumptions of a Judicial Performance Evaluation Program

  • Each sitting judge should be evaluated on a regular schedule, at least twice during each term.

 

  • Evaluations should emphasize apolitical metrics of judicial performance, and should be based primarily on performance against predetermined benchmarks.

 

  • An evaluation committee should gather a broad and deep set of information on the judge’s performance, including survey data, review of case management skills and written opinions, courtroom observation, and information gained from interviews with the judge. The committee should issue a report concerning each judge’s performance.

 

  • The evaluation committee should be independent, and should consist both of lawyers and non-lawyers

.

  • The evaluation process should be transparent both to the judge being evaluated and to the public.

 

  • Evaluation results, and information on the evaluation process itself, should be widely disseminated to the public.

SOURCE: Shared Expectations: Judicial Accountability in Context, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, www.du.edu/legalinstitute

 

 
   

 

        
     

 

    
   
336 Bon Air Road #447 - Greenbrae, CA 94904 - 415-267-6149 - Email CJE
   
         
             
    CJE DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. If you have a legal problem, seek professional legal counsel. We want to hear your story, however, please be advised, if you choose to share information with us, we can not guarantee your privacy. Click here for further details about our disclaimer.    
         
   
Copyright © 2006-2008 Center for Judicial Excellence. All Rights Reserved.