Sound it out!
Deeeep Ennnnnnd Innnnnnn Seeeeaaaa.....
Still don't get it? Say it out loud.
DE-PEN-DEN-CY
I'll heavily elaborate on this one in my blog later. But I'll share the brainstorm baby thoughts here, as I consider you my friends and trust you won't swipe my brilliant idea. If you are easily offended, you should "unfriend" me, because my friends are not easily offended. (Note the key word in that sentence.)
This just really pisses me off.
If you find yourself as a party in the Dependency Courtroom, you are really in the "DEEP END IN SEA."...where you are more likely to sink than swim. If you swim, you'll still be eaten by one of those great, white, scary creatures with all the sharp teeth.
The Sonoma County Superior Court really does consider itself to be above the law. Here's just one example from the Local Rules applicable to Juvenile Dependency Cases relating to privacy issues:
10.17 RELEASE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO JUVENILES
(J-1) This rule addresses the exchange of information between Family Court Services,
Probation Department, Department of Human Services, Case Management Council,and the Court Investigator in juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, child
custody, conservatorship, guardianship, and criminal proceedings. The disclosure
of information concerning children and their parents by any of these agencies is
generally prohibited by law. Nevertheless, a limited exchange of information about
children or parents between these agencies in certain circumstances will serve the
best interests of the child who is before the court. The court hereby finds that the
best interests of children and victims appearing in court, the public interest in
avoiding duplication of effort by the courts and by the investigative agencies
serving the juvenile and family courts and the value of having relevant information
gathered by a court agency outweighs the confidentiality interests reflected in Penal
Code sections 11167 and 11167.5 and W&I sections 827 and 10850 et seq., Family
Code sections 1818, and Probate Code section1513, and therefore good cause exists
for this rule.*
*The bold italics at the end are my doing so you would closely read it.
Care to mess around with the structure of the sentence?
(Thank you, Mr. Ehlers, my ninth grade English teacher, for teaching me how to dissect sentences so I can analyze the hell out of them, resulting in a better understanding of what is really going on and ultimately just really pissing me off.)
(BECAUSE, even though I exercise my right to tell the world, I only get three minutes in which to do it, dammit, and did I make any difference whatsoever????? Nevermind.)
The law relating to confidentiality as written in the following codes should not be followed by the Sonoma Superior Court:
Penal Code (sections 11167 and 11167.5)
AND
the Welfare and Institutions Code (sections 827 and 10850+whatever follows the first subdivision of that section)
AND
the Family Code (section 1818)
AND
the Probate Code (section 1513).
Wow. That's a lot of code.
Why, I ask, would any government want to take that much law and toss it? Oh.
Because good cause exists.
Ok. Wow.
What is this "good cause," I wonder. Oh. According to our policy makers, it's in everyone's best interest. That wonderful, vague term upon which so many of our unbiased judges rely.
My opinion is that the legal definition of "best interest" needs to be refined.*
Thanks for stopping by and reading...I could go on for days, but I have other things to distract me from fundamental, important things which effect my rights. More later, of that, I'm sure.
*Thank you, CAM, for saving me from grammatical suicide, as evidenced above by the two simple words: to and be!
Meow.
