5 posts tagged “family court corruption”
Have you ever called a government agency for help only to be chuckled at and made fun of? Then chances are you have never had to contact the Cocke County Department of Children Services (DCS) located on Heritage Street in Newport, Tennessee.
Such was the case on Monday, July 6, when Renée Lynn, Editor-in-Chief of “The Knoxville Journal,” needed to discuss a dire situation with Kim Ramsey, a case worker at the Cocke County DCS. Mrs. Lynn tried numerous times to reach Ms. Ramsey or anyone in the department to no avail.
Finally, Mrs. Lynn got in touch with Ms. Ramsey to converse about a very serious issue concerning information relevant to two foster children under their jurisdiction. Apparently the information was ignored.
When asked very pertinent questions about the care of these children, Ms. Ramsey began laughing over the phone along with other employees. They just kept on laughing. Ms. Ramsey made no effort to correct her rude behavior with an apology. Mrs. Lynn then informed Ms. Ramsey that this was not a laughing matter, but was a grave set of circumstances. Again Mrs. Lynn was met with snickering.
It just so happened that Mrs. Lynn’s telephone was on speaker phone and at least one other person witnessed the outrageous behavior of Ms. Ramsey.
Mrs. Lynn commented, “It is a sad day when upstanding citizens are being subjected to such disrespect from government employees.”
This is not the first complaint lodged against the Cocke County DCS. This reporter knows of at least one other incident in which the Cocke County office has overstepped their bounds.
Ms. Vicki Hodge, supervisor of the Cocke County DCS did return a call to Mrs. Lynn on Tuesday, July 7, but did not apologize for the offensive conduct of her employees.
If you have any information about the Cocke County DCS you would like to share, please call Myra Wheeler at The Knoxville Journal at (865) 546-5353.
http://www.theknoxvillejournal.com/inside/pages/news/Cocke-County-DCS.html
I am sure they would be interested in all the stories in TN, give it a shot.
| Judge to day care worker: Say you're sorry |  |
 |
| Wednesday, 13 May 2009 | |
|
The former lead day-care worker at a Sun Prairie, Wisconsin day care center has been given probation for squeezing an 18-month old until she stopped breathing, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. Dane County Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler gave Sara Kladenhall 5 years to "prove... she was sincere when she said she was sorry for what happened," reports the paper.The child was revived by a co-worker and has since recovered. Co-worker Lindsay Anderson, charged with child neglect for helping to hold the child down, was placed in a first offenders program. The State Journal says that following that sentencing, Anderson was charged with domestic disorderly conduct in another case and dropped from the first offenders program. On May 7, she pleaded guilty to the disorderly conduct charges and was placed, again, in the first offenders program. For a second time. |
The Department of Human Services (DHS) is struggling to accurately and timely identify who is qualified to receive assistance, costing the state millions in misspent assistance dollars and millions more in potential federal sanctions and lost incentives, said a report from Auditor General (OAG) Thomas McTavish released on Friday.
DHS, which is responsible for determining eligibility for cash, food assistance, childcare and Medicaid cases, didn't effectively catch or fix errors in determination in the four years reviewed by the audit, from October 2002 through November 2006, the audit said.
Among the chief finds of auditors was that DHS mistakenly sent out payments in fiscal year 2006-06 in 7.5 percent of cases, which the report attributed to ever increasing caseloads from workers.
Although DHS has made strides in its system, the error rate in Michigan in 2005-06 was still 1.5 percent higher than the federal government tolerates, opening the state to economic sanctions much like the $89 million the federal government initiated for the fiscal years 1995-02.
Not only is Michigan inaccurate in its approvals but it's slow, too, the report said.
Michigan ranks 45th in its turnaround time with 81 percent of clients receiving approvals within the 30 days required by the federal government. That compares to Massachusetts , which ranked first and informs nearly 99 percent of its clients about their case status within a month.
In order to progress further, DHS said, it needs more "resources," because, although officials agreed with many of the audit's suggestions, they can't comply with them without more funds.
Among the fixes the department said it would initiate with more money is a study of how many workers it needs to handle caseloads and what tasks could be done by other staff members to increase worker availability for clients.
With more than 75 percent of workers and 87 percent of managers reporting that caseloads are too high, the study will likely find that more staff is needed, but the department said it can't hire more workers without additional funding.
As usual, the Department immediately cries "We need more money! We need more staff!" They told the OAG they would use additional dollars to "do a study". In fact, the OAG said that "DHS did not conduct a workload analysis to determine optimal caseworker staffing levels" and not only did they not do that last year, they hadn't done it in 2001-02 after being told they should by the Auditor General. So now they say they will if we give them more money?
You may read the audit for yourself. Here is the link: http://audgen.michigan.gov/comprpt/docs/r431028505.pdf
Does DHS need more staff? Do they have too many managers and not enough case workers? It is hard to get those answers; the Department is not forthcoming. The bottom line is the Department of Human Services has been woefully inefficient and inept for years and it continues to be in spite of repeated Audit Reports reporting the problem and even suggesting the solution. This is a problem that cannot be fixed by the OAG and it cannot be fixed by the Legislature. It must be addressed by the "Executive". That's right folks; I am talking about the governor and her department heads.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but my Transparency bill, which would expose the entire state budget, including that of the DHS, to the sunshine for everyone to see and closely examine, would go a long way toward resolving many of these issues.
On March 12, 2008, a joint committee of the Legislature met to ask for answers from the Department. What was their answer? We need more staff. We need more time. We are implementing a new program in the NEXT TWO YEARS. Once we have that in place, it will be better.
Here is hoping that Director Ismael Ahmed, the recently appointed Director of DHS can effectively address the issue.
What is Going on in the House?
To keep abreast of
bills moving through the House of Representatives, check my blog. I will be
posting when the House is in session at www.CorePrinciples.blogspot.com
Judicial discipline in 2007
In 2007, as a result of state judicial discipline proceedings, nine judges were removed from office (including one former judge). Six judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to agreements with judicial commissions that were made public. 104 additional judges (or former judges in approximately 15 cases) were publicly sanctioned in 2007. In 42 of those cases, the discipline was imposed pursuant to the consent of the judge. (These figures do not include pending recommendations or decisions pending on appeal.)
There were 19 suspensions without pay, ranging from one week to 18 months (with six months stayed with conditions); one suspension also included a public reprimand and $1000 fine; one also included a public reprimand and $1500 fine. In addition, there were 24 public censures; 22 public admonishments; 30 public reprimands (one reprimand also included a $500 fine, one also included a $3500 civil penalty); two cease and desist orders; three attorney discipline cases involving former judges for conduct as judges; and four other public dispositions (a private reprimand that was made public and three cases in which misconduct was found or stipulated to but no sanction was imposed).
The 2007 cases illustrate the variety of misconduct, both on and off the bench, for which judges may be sanctioned. As in other years, many cases involved discourteous demeanor in the courtroom, such as becoming angry with a litigant, treating attorneys in a sarcastic and belittling manner, using religious and ethnic slurs, and abusing the contempt power. Delay, administrative failures, and offensive language in dealing with staff also resulted in discipline for several judges. As always, ex parte communications (independent investigations or conversations with parties, attorneys, an Army recruiter, an arresting officer, witnesses, a landlord, or defendants’ relatives, for example) and failure to disqualify (from cases involving a judge’s attorney, a neighbor with whom the judge had poor relationship, or relatives, for example) also formed the basis for judicial discipline sanctions for several judges. Eight judges were sanctioned following driving while intoxicated offenses, while four former judges were disciplined based on criminal convictions for domestic violence, tampering with a utility company meter, failing to file federal income tax returns, or common law misconduct in office.
As usual, judges’ failure to resist the temptation to assist friends and relatives by using the power or prestige of office to fix tickets or ask for leniency from police, prosecutors, and other judges resulted in numerous sanctions in 2007. Less typical conduct sanctioned in 2007 included, by different judges, pushing counsel; assaulting an off-duty police officer and verbally abusing the officer’s wife; pursuing a defendant who had fled from the courtroom; telephoning a defendant’s alleged drug dealer in open court; directing a mother in a custody case to lower her pants in the courtroom to view a wound; approving a plea agreement that sent a defendant to another state; and having a domestic violence victim’s facial injuries photographed. Charitable fund-raising in the courthouse, including direct solicitation of attorneys, and an adulterous affair, including sexual intercourse in the courthouse, also led to discipline of two judges in 2007.
Many cases involved egregious handling of cases or a pattern of abuse of discretion, for example, issuing judgments without conducting a hearing or providing for service of process; finding unrepresented defendants had violated their probation without following due process requirements; increasing or threatening to increase defendants’ sentences for asking questions or offering defenses; informing unrepresented defendants at arraignment that their only choices were to plead guilty or accept diversion; failing to advise criminal defendants of constitutional and procedural rights; failing to accept guilty pleas in accordance with court rules; and following a practice that appeared to coerce criminal defendants to waive their right to jury trial. In many cases, the judge’s misconduct was exacerbated by failure to respond to inquiries by the conduct commission, making false or misleading statements to the commission, retaliating against the complainant, or attempting to influence the testimony of a witness.
The Judicial Conduct Reporter, a quarterly published by the Center for Judicial Ethics, reports developments in judicial discipline, tracks changes in codes of conduct, and analyzes recent decisions and advisory opinions. The fall 2007 issue has articles on campaign supporters and disqualification, the judicial accountability system in Bosnia and Herzegovina, developments following Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, and assessing complaints about judicial conduct and summaries of recent advisory opinions on teaching by judges. An annual subscription costs $32 ($36 foreign). A single issue of the Reporter may be ordered for $9 ($10 foreign) plus postage and handling.
AJS and Center publications can be ordered on-line at www.ajs.org. Click here for more information.
Dated January 23, 2008
Click here to go back to the previous articles page.
-
ABA - Dialogue on Freedom
-
The American Judicature Society - A nonpartisan organization of judges, lawyers, and non-legally trained citizAmerican Bar Association's Lawlink ens interested in the administration of justice.
-
Courts.net - Indexed List to U.S. Court Sites
-
Davidson County District Attorney's Office - website provides enhanced information about the office to victims, witnesses, members of the community, and the media.
-
FindLaw , A Comprehensive Legal Site Search Engine
-
Institute for Court Managment (National Center for State Courts)
-
JERITT Project - a national clearinghouse for information on continuing judicial branch education
-
"Kids and the Law" from California Bar Association
-
Law and Politics Internet Guide - (Legal resources)
-
Lipscomb University Institute for Conflict Management
-
Nashville Bar Association Appellate Practice Manual
-
Nashville School of Law
-
National Center for State Courts - A comprehensive listing of State, International and Federal Courts
-
SEARCH -National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
-
CTAS - County Technical Assistance Service, University of Tennessee
(Complete Listings of County Officials) -
TennHelp - A project of the Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services
-
Tennessee Bar Association - disciplinary process explained
-
Tennessee Bench-Bar CLE
-
Tennessee Code Annotated (on Michie site)
-
Tennessee County Information (Info from the National Association of Counties )
-
Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization
-
Tennessee Attorney General Opinions
-
Tennessee Board of Law Examiners
-
Tennessee General Assembly (For current legislation - choose "Bills" from site's menu.)
-
Tennessee Legislature Chaptered Bills
-
Tennessee District Attorney Generals' Conference
-
Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program
-
The Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women (TLAW)
-
Tennessee Office of Criminal Justice
-
Tennessee State Agency Rules and Regulations (Non-judicial)
-
U.S. District Court - Middle Division
-
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Opinions)
-
University of Missouri - Kansas City - Famous Trials - Detailed Historical Accounts
-
Vanderbilt University Law School
