Report 2009-109 Recommendation 23 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 #23 To: Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento

To make sure that the minor's counsel it appoints meet the additional standards required by the superior court's local rules, the Sacramento family court should obtain any missing applications for minor's counsel before appointing them to any future cases.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

As a result of reduced staffing, the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. As explained in previous responses to the State Auditor, the Court's use of Judicial Council form FL-322 ensures that counsel appointed for a child is qualified. Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 23.

  • 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 pool of attorney's who act as minor's counsel has changed. In addition, as the Sacramento family court noted in its response, it assesses counsel's qualifications as summarized on a standard Judicial Council form. As such, this recommendation is not applicable at this time.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

As a result of reduced staffing, the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. As explained in previous responses to the State Auditor, the Court's use of Judicial Council form FL-322 ensures that counsel appointed for a child is qualified. Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 23.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

As a result of reduced staffing, the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. As explained in previous responses to the State Auditor, the Court's use of Judicial Council form FL-322 ensures that counsel appointed for a child is qualified. Therefore, the Court does not intend to implement Recommendation Number 23.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

As a result of reduced staffing, the Court does not have the resources to search for and review all previous training records. As stated in the Court's letter of January 7, 2011, Judicial Council form FL-322 obviates the need to implement this recommendation.

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.


Report type

Report type
















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