Report 2009-109 Recommendation 16 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 #16 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 obtain any missing applications and training records for private mediators and evaluators on its current panel list before appointing them to future cases.
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015
As explained in the Court's previous responses to the State Auditor, Recommendation Number 16 will not be implemented by the Court. In light of staffing reductions the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. However, the Court verifies that all 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 the use of Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411).
- 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 qualifications and training as part of its appointment process for panel membership. As such, this recommendation is not applicable at this time.
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014
As explained in the Court's previous responses to the State Auditor, Recommendation Number 16 will not be implemented by the Court. In light of recent staffing reductions the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. However, the Court verifies that all 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 the use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411).
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013
As explained in the Court's previous responses to the State Auditor, Recommendation Number 16 will not be implemented by the Court. In light of recent staffing reductions the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. However, the Court verifies that all 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 the use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411).
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012
As indicated in the Court's response of January 7, 2011, the use of Judicial Council form FL-326 assures that private mediator and panel members meet minimum qualifications and training requirements. In light of recent staffing reductions the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records.
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.