DEPENDENCY COURT DESERVES HIGHER PRIORITY

Children in Juvenile Dependency Court often have been abused or
neglected. In California, they risk being harmed a second time - by
the court system itself. The state must do better for these
vulnerable children.

During the past three days, Mercury News reporter Karen de Sa has
detailed the grim effects of an under-funded court, where children
and their parents often are treated with indifference. In a system
where judges struggle with high caseloads, lawyers are underpaid and
parents are ignored, mistakes about whether a child should stay with
a parent can leave a scar for life. Parents facing termination of
their rights must be guaranteed adequate representation.

Most child abuse and neglect involve parents with drug and alcohol
addiction. But even parents who admit addiction find treatment hard
to get. With cases so wrenching, the court must receive a higher
priority and more funding.

Judges, parents and lawyers were remarkably candid with de Sa about
the problems. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George is
aware, too: Within weeks, a commission he appointed will recommend
reforms. They must include more money from the Legislature, with
fairer allocations within the courts, to achieve:

* More judges and a reduced caseload. Burdened by five times the
recommended levels, judges regard assignments to dependency court as
the dregs and transfer as quick as they can.

* Better pay to reduce the churn of lawyers representing children and
parents. For many attorneys, dependency court is their first job.
Their inexperience shows.

* Performance standards for caseloads, length of hearings, the use of experts.

* Juveniles' participation. Children older than 10 should be present
at hearings; they should not be brushed aside.

Dependency court in Santa Clara County would benefit from these
changes as well as other reforms. While praised as innovative, Santa
Clara County's operation has distinct problems. Unlike other
counties, the district attorney's office, with well-paid lawyers and
investigators, represents children, while a for-profit law firm, with
a high turnover of underpaid lawyers, has a low-bid contract to
represent indigent parents. It's an unequal battle that leaves
parents feeling victimized.

Judges and experts agree: The district attorney's office, which
prosecutes parents in criminal court, shouldn't represent children in
dependency court. The district attorney's adversarial nature
conflicts with the court's goal of collaboration.

The district attorney's office's contract also costs the county $2
million a year more than what's provided through the courts budget.
The county should stop the subsidy and the state should pick up
additional necessary costs.

Santa Clara Court administrators must hold Juvenile Defenders, the
for-profit firm representing parents, accountable. The firm's
attorneys told de Sa they were barely trained and were discouraged
from hiring experts to challenge findings against parents. Instead of
collaboration, there was capitulation.

Over the course of a year, de Sa had extraordinary access to
confidential proceedings. Her investigation offered a rare look at an
overwhelmed system.

Now that they know the court's disturbing condition, legislators and
judges must fix it.