Report 2009-109 Recommendation 20 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 #20 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 reinstate its local rules for private mediators and evaluators to provide a minimum of three references, and for private evaluators to provide a statement that they have read the court's evaluator guidelines.

Agency Response*

The Court already verifies that 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 use of Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: September 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 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 private mediators' and evaluators' qualifications before appointment. As such, this recommendation is not applicable at this time.


Agency Response*

The Court already verifies that 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 use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: October 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


Agency Response*

The Court already verifies that 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 use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


Agency Response*

The Court already verifies that 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 use of the Declaration of Private Child Custody Recommending Counselor Regarding Qualifications (local form FR-411). Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 20.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


Agency Response*

As stated in the Court's letter of January 7, 2011, Judicial Council form FL-322 obviates the need to implement this recommendation.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: September 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


All Recommendations in 2009-109

†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.

*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader