U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–422 PDF 2004

JUSTICE FOR ALL: A REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 23, 2004

Serial No. 108–185

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 23, 2004 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Ashby, Cornelia M., Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security

Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; Elliott S. Hall, chairman, Council for Court Excellence; Rhonda Dahlman, esquire, legal counsel for

the elderly, American Association of Retired Persons; Nicholas Ward,

esquire, former chairman, Guardian and Conservator Committee, District of Columbia Bar Association; and Michael F. Curtin, esquire,

former deputy register of wills, member, District of Columbia Bar ......... 70

King, Rufus G., III, chief judge, District of Columbia Superior Court;

Lee F. Satterfield, presiding judge, Family Court, District of Columbia

Superior Court; and Jose M. Lopez, presiding judge, Probate Division,

District of Columbia Superior Court ........................................................... 19

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Ashby, Cornelia M., Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security

Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ............... 73

Curtin, Michael F.,esquire, former deputy register of wills, member, District of Columbia Bar, prepared statement of ............................................ 126

Dahlman, Rhonda,esquire, legal counsel for the elderly, American Association of Retired Persons, prepared statement of ..................................... 110

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Washington Post articles .......................................................................... 3

Hall, Elliott S., chairman, Council for Court Excellence, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 101

King, Rufus G., III, chief judge, District of Columbia Superior Court,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 22

Lopez, Jose M., presiding judge, Probate Division, District of Columbia

Superior Court, letter dated May 6, 2004 ................................................... 61

Ward, Nicholas,esquire, former chairman, Guardian and Conservator

Committee, District of Columbia Bar Association, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 119

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 143

(1)

JUSTICE FOR ALL: A REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUPERIOR COURT

FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis, Tiberi and Norton.

Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director/director of communications; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Howie Denis, counsel;

Robert Borden, counsel/parliamentarian; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; John Cuaderes and Victoria Proctor, senior professional staff members; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien

Beattie, deputy clerk; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel; Earley

Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk;

and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good morning. A quorum being present,

the Committee on Government Reform will come to order and we

have the most important Members here anyway. I would like to

welcome everybody to our oversight hearing on the District of Columbia Superior Court. In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton

noted that the crowning defect of the Articles of Confederation was

the lack of a judiciary. Today we’ll look at the management, the administration of that critical element of our political system in the

District of Columbia. We’ll focus particularly on the probate division and the family court which play an important role in protecting the most vulnerable among us, the elderly, the infirm and the

children.

Before we begin, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the

passing this week of Mary McGrory, the long-time Washington Post

and Washington Star columnist. I do so today because among the

many highlights in her distinguished career, Mary was a strong advocate for children in the District of Columbia, including her support for the creation of a D.C. family court. Using her customary

mix of charm and tenacity and her space on the editorial page of

one of the Nation’s largest newspapers, Mary became an irresistible force for better legal treatment for the most defenseless members of our society. Her contribution to this city and this region will

be sorely missed.

2

This hearing will focus on three main areas. The first is general

administration of the D.C. Superior Court, including performance

goals and measures, fiscal management and the integrated justice

information system. The second is the probate division, particularly

the possible neglect or abuse by court-appointed guardians and conservators. And the final area is how the establishment of the family

court has improved child welfare in the District of Columbia. Regarding the probate division, this committee is concerned that

court-appointed guardians and conservators are taking advantage

of or neglecting their clients. We have received a report that a conservators’ failure to make mortgage payments on the ward’s house

resulted in a foreclosure.

The same conservator failed to pay real estate taxes, failed to

make annual financial filings and failed to prevent the health care

provider from taking assets of the ward. This report comes on the

heels of the Washington Post series that detailed instances of mistreatment of elderly, mentally ill and indigent individuals by

guardians and conservators appointed in the District of Columbia,

and suggested that the court system exercised little control or discipline over those it appoints to protect the needy. I’d ask unanimous consent that these articles from the Post be included in the

record at this point. Without objection. So ordered. The committee

needs to know how and whether the court addresses these problems.

[The information referred to follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Chairman TOM DAVIS. There is a question as to whether existing

safeguards such as new training and performance standards for

probate lawyers, as well as screening procedures for an appointment of guardians and conservators are enough and whether other

actions by the court or by Congress is needed. I’m also interested

in learning more about the administration of the probate division

because this committee has received reports of delays in processing

appointments reports and payment requests. We need to better understand the appointment responsibilities and accountability of the

registrar of wills and her staff, the relationship of the register of

wills office with practitioners and the adequacy of the reporting requirements for conservators and the enforcement of those requirements by the register of wills and the court.

As for the family court, most of you know Congress created this

court as part of a broader reform effort in the child welfare system,

and as an extension of the reform we’d already begun with the District’s Child and Family Services Agency. The Family Court Act of

2001 was crafted to resolve specific shortcomings in the court, including structural organization and case management practices.

The act increased the number of family court judges and required that judges have a background in family law and participate

in ongoing training. This was intended to ensure that family court

judges are dedicated to serving on the court and alleviate the sense

among many judges that serving on the family court is a required

stepping stone to a more desirable position on the superior court.

The new family court permits judges to maintain manageable case

loads. It is intended to reduce the backlog of cases that existed for

many years. Furthermore, the critical one family, one judge concept

allows for the continuity of case managements and requires that a

single judge follow the case through disposition. Consolidation of

public functions of the court sends the message to the public that

the family court is an integral and critical part of the court system,

not an afterthought.

Today witnesses will discuss the court’s progress in implementing the Family Court Act as well as its compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Acts. GAO reports that the family court is

making progress in both areas and is seeing tremendous improvements in its operations as a result. However, there are still areas

for improvement which we have asked the court to address, such

as better compliance with the ASFA permanency deadlines. We will

determine what, if any, assistance we may provide to guarantee

the family court continues moving in the right direction. We have

a distinguished group of witnesses before us this morning. First

we’ll hear from the chief judge of the superior court and the presiding judge of the family court and the probate division.

Then we will hear from the Council for Court Excellence, which

can address their work in all three areas that we are looking at

today. The General Accounting Office, which has done extensive

analysis of the family court situation. A representative from the

Legal Counsel for the Elderly, which represents indigent persons in

probate proceedings and two members of the D.C. Bar, who practice in the probate court. I want to thank all of our witnesses for

appearing before the committee. I look forward to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

16

17

18

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton any opening comments?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As usual, I

associate myself with the chairman’s remarks. I’d particularly do so

as to those part of his remarks that—to the part of his remarks

concerning Mary McGrory, and I note for the record that the chairman has extolled the virtues of a confessed and unabashed liberal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for initiating this hearing. I have only

brief opening remarks. This is a necessary and appropriate oversight hearing, because Federal law has placed jurisdiction and the

cost of the DC courts with the Congress. Today the committee is

focusing on two parts of the superior court, because each has had

its own sets of problems.

This committee has worked—has closely followed the family

court division since the death of an infant, Brianna Blackman, exposed the structural issues in the old family division. As a result,

Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has long been involved with

issues of affecting abused and neglected children, and I, worked for

many months on the District of Columbia Family Court Act of

2001, H.R. 2657. The first revision of the superior court since its

creation more than 30 years ago. The court initially resisted many

of the changes, although many had long been recommended by respected panels such as the Council of Court Excellence. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that a successful major transformation

in the family court has been undertaken.

I appreciate the partnership I had with Mr. DeLay in writing the

bill and his efforts, which assured substantial increased funding to

carry out the extensive changes the new law made in the court.

The Congress paid for this transformation with extra funding, but

the court deserves the credit for the considerable changes. Today,

I will be particularly interested in learning why this success has

not been reflected where it is most needed, in the timely placement

of foster children in permanent homes. The probate division is a

different case. The committee has not previously looked at the probate division but learned of problems the same way we originally

learned of the problems of the family division, through unfavorable

public reports. Just as the death of Brianna focused the Congress

on the family division, reports of neglect of infirmed adults by

guardians and conservators indicated a need for attention to the

probate division.

Apparently, change is underway. I will be particularly interested

in the court’s progress in meeting the problems of the probate division. May I thank all of today’s witnesses for their work with our

courts and for their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Testifying on our

first panel we have the Honorable Rufus G King III, the chief judge

of the District of Columbia Superior Court, the Honorable Lee F.

Satterfield, presiding judge, Family Court of the District of Columbia Superior Court; and the Honorable Jose M. Lopez, presiding

judge of the probate division.

It’s the policy of the committee that all witnesses be sworn before

they testify. Would you rise with me and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge King, we’ll start with you. And try

to keep the testimony to 5 minutes. If you need to go over, it’s pretVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 01, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95422.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
19

ty informal today, but your entire testimony is already in the

record, and we’ve read it and have questions based on that, so you

can highlight what you need to do. And you have a light that will

turn orange after 4 minutes and red after 5. And do your best to

adhere to it, but we’re here to listen to you and get input and just

have a conversation. Judge, thanks for your service and thanks for

being with us this morning.

STATEMENTS OF RUFUS G. KING III, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT; LEE F. SATTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT; AND JOSE M. LOPEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE,

PROBATE DIVISION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR

COURT

Judge KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congresswoman Norton,

thank you for the opportunity to appear today. If I may beg your

indulgence for just a moment, I would like to add my appreciation

for Mary McGrory. One of the facts that isn’t talked about as much

as some of her many accomplishments is that for over 50 years,

every week, week in and week out, without break for holidays or

any other reason, she would go out to the St. Anne’s infants home

and read to and play with the children who were at that home as

a result of various family dysfunctions. And in working with her,

I know from having been her target a number of times, how incisive her mind was.

At the same time, I think that her service at St. Anne’s infants

home speak volumes of the huge size of that person. I am going to

take just a few moments because I know the committee wishes to

hear from the family court and the probate court to touch on a few

of the things that the superior court has ongoing now and has recently completed. I must begin by thanking both of you, as well as

the majority leader for the support you have given the superior

court and our family court. The Family Court Act of 2001 and the

resources that you help to provide to implement that act upgrade

our IT systems and enhance our facilities has been most beneficial,

not just for the court, but more importantly, for the District of Columbia public.

On behalf of Chief Judge Annice Wagner of the court of appeals

and myself, I want to express our deep appreciation for the strong

support you have shown us. To touch on a few of the current and

recent activities, the D.C. Family Court Act has now fully implemented one judge, one family, transfer of cases into the family

court, more timely permanency for abused and neglected children

about which more from Judge Satterfield. The Mayor’s Services Liaison Office is up and running in the Moultrie Courthouse, making

services available easily for those who need them. A family court

self-help center was developed and implemented in partnership

with the family bar to assist unrepresented litigants.

A family treatment court has been established for mothers with

substance abuse problems so that they may receive drug treatment,

counseling and parenting classes without having their families torn

asunder in the process. Interdisciplinary training has been held annually for judges, social workers and others, tightening our connection with and coordination with others in the child welfare system.

20

Elsewhere in the superior court, the Landlord Tenant Resource

Center has been developed and opened, again in partnership with

the bar to provide assistance to those most in need of it in that

very busy court.

The Greater Southeast Domestic Violence Intake Unit has been

established and assists over 100 domestic violence victims each

month in the east of the river community, enabling them to obtain

temporary protection orders at a location near their homes. Community courts have been set up as pilot projects, first in the minor

misdemeanor and traffic court, and then in our general misdemeanor court, covering all of the east of the river community in

wards 6 and 7. And that—and as well, we have established a separate prostitution calendar.

Those courts are showing promising results in providing a fresh

and more successful approach to some of the social problems that

contribute to the crime that so many of us experience. Town hall

meetings have been held both in connection with the community

courts and with the family court to make sure that we are aware

of the concerns of the communities we serve and what we’re trying

to accomplish for them. We have four more such meetings planned

over the next 6 weeks. The court’s new integrated justice information system has been implemented in the family court and will be

brought on-line in the probate and civil divisions some time in the

early summer. I just replaced 20 different data bases the court has

been using for over 2 decades and brings us closer to a reality of

being able to easily coordinate cases from all different parts of the

superior court, which is a unified court system.

The probate division, working with the bar, established a mandatory training requirement for attorneys who wish to receive court

an appointments and is in the final stages of writing practice

standards for all attorneys appearing before the division. An administrative order tightened requirements for timely filing of reports and accountings and it is in the final stages of revision, consistent again with comment from the bar. And we are seeking to

continue our collaboration with the bar in addressing various concerns in that division, as you will hear more about shortly. Building B has been renovated and the small claims and landlord tenant

courts have been relocated there to actually where they originated

in 1938 in public friendly space within steps of the judiciary square

metro stop.

The Crime Victims Compensation Program has received a major

physical renovation and up lift at its quarters in building A. Currently, a major construction project is underway in the Moultrie

Courthouse to consolidate family court public operations on the J

M level. This new family friendly space will have a central intake

office for all types of cases and filings, child waiting areas and new

courtrooms and hearing rooms and it will open in July. I am particularly proud to be able to report that all of these construction

projects have been completed on schedule and in budget.

Finally, the District of Columbia courts have developed a strategic plan and are well along the way toward implementing it. Led

by the Strategic Planning Leadership Council made up of judges

and senior administrators, each division and branch of the superior

court is developing management action plans to bring the broad

21

court wide goals into specific projects and operations. The ultimate

goal is to better realize the court’s mission, to protect rights and

liberties, uphold and interpret the law and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly and effectively in the Nation’s Capital.

I will stop here as I understand the committee wishes to hear

from the presiding judge of the family court, Judge Lee M.

Satterfield, and from the presiding judge of the probate division,

Judge Jose M. Lopez. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the superior court. I will be happy to assist in any questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Judge King follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge Satterfield, welcome. Thanks for

being here.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Thank you. Good morning. And thank you,

Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Norton. Every day a District

child is placed in a safe permanent and stable home is a great day

for our city. As a result of the additional resources that Congress

has provided, as well as the ongoing collaboration with agencies

such as CFSA and other District agencies that serve children and

families, I believe we are able to say that we have more and more

great days in the District of Columbia. When it comes to our family

court, and when it comes to abused and neglected children, we

focus on four things, safety, permanency, due process and timeliness.

When we have implemented programs and initiatives, we have

implemented them with these areas in mind. For example, in terms

of safety, we conduct prompt and more detailed meaningful emergency hearings when children are removed from their families, not

simply to talk about placement issues, but also about the services

that the children need and the services for the family. In cases

where mothers are substance abusers, they now have the option of

remaining with their children but in a safe environment through

our Family Treatment Court Program, an environment through

which they can learn to parent their children as well as learn how

to maintain their sobriety.

In terms of permanency, we have increased our compliance with

conducting timely permanency hearings. In cases of neglected children filed in 2001 and 2002, we show a compliance rate of 75 to

80 percent of the cases had permanency hearings on time, the majority of those cases had permanency goals set for the children. And

so far in our cases that were filed in 2003, they are meeting their

permanency hearing goal this year, 86 percent of those cases have

had their permanency hearing.

However, we recognize that we have more work to do in the area.

We want to make sure that these hearings are of the most quality

and that all the necessary findings are being made in order to assure that there is a quality outcome for the child. And we have not

met our goal of 100 percent compliance with conducting these permanency hearings timely. That’s a goal that may be aspirational

for some, but we think it will be realistic for us. Nevertheless, more

children were adopted in the District of Columbia in 2003 than in

2002. And more children achieved permanency in 2003, than in

2002. And when it comes to reunification, when it is an appropriate

goal in the case, they have achieved reunification much quicker

than in the past.

In terms of due process, we try to insure that there is adequate

representation for parents, children and youth and we did that by

creating panels of qualified attorneys to represent parents and

youth and to serve as guardian ad litem. We began our guardian

ad litem program with a contract with the Childrens Law Center,

a nonprofit organization to provide guardian ad litem services to

some of our children, as well as additional training for some of the

other attorneys. Standards of practice are in place——

Ms. NORTON. Could I interrupt you, Judge Satterfield? Do we

have testimony from you here.

42

Judge SATTERFIELD. It is incorporated with the Chief Judge’s testimony in one statement.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. One major packet and then they are each

speaking individually to it.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. You can proceed.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Sure. All right. Thank you. We have standards of practice in place for attorneys practicing in the area of

abuse and neglect, and the Chief Judge is about to adopt standards

of practice for attorneys representing youth in our juvenile court.

In addition to parents being notified to attend hearings through the

efforts of CFSA, foster parents are now more consistently being notified of hearings and we appoint volunteer advocates in our cases

to protect the children.

And finally, in terms of timeliness, there’s been a steady decline

in the time it takes to resolve the legal issues of whether neglect

has occurred. And this has resulted from the increasing judicial resources as well as our child protection mediation program which

has resolved this issue in a less adversary manner. We believe that

the glue that has helped put all this together has been the implementation of the one judge, one family case management approach.

As required under the Family Court Act, this enables the judge to

schedule things more timely and to make better decisions because

the judge knows more about the family. And also the improved

communications with CFSA.

I continue our biweekly meetings with the director of CFSA, and

will continue to do so with the interim director who starts next

week. We continue our collaboration with CFSA on many promising projects such as the family treatment court, the bench mark

permanency hearings for our older children and in terms of assignment of cases geographically and scheduling of hearings. We have

started a new operational meeting designed to be not just informational between the agency and the court, but problem solving. And

we continue ongoing discussions about enhancing our exchange of

information electronically.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that it is obvious to us that we have

more to do when it comes to children and families in the District

of Columbia and we know that. But we are confident that things

will continue to get better. We have disciplined motivated judges

and managers and staff in family court that are passionate about

the work that they do. We will continue our collaboration with

stakeholders, but we truly would like to see each day as a great

day for a District’s child. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Judge Lopez, thanks for being with us.

Judge LOPEZ. Good morning, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman

Norton.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. There is a button there you push that we

can hear you better.

Judge LOPEZ. As you can tell, I am new at this. Good morning,

Chairman Davis, Congresswoman Norton. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. I will just take this opportunity to

highlight some of the accomplishments of the past year or so

though I must say in all modesty, I have only been presiding judge

of the probate division for the past 4 months. The probate division

43

was one of the few divisions that piloted the strategic planning

process by developing its management action plan [MAP], a very

apt acronym since a plan really is a map of what the terrain looks

like right now and where we want to head over the next few years.

The probate division MAP process was so successful that the register of wills was asked to give a presentation to all other court

managers on how her team went about creating their map. Other

divisions are using our process as a best practices model for their

MAP development. As an update, the division recently celebrated

completion of several milestones in the MAP design to enhance

services to the public.

On February 19 and 25, 2004, the staff participated in a customer service training program facilitated by an outside trainer.

The program included an open discussion sharing recently received

comments from bar members regarding areas in which services

provided by the division could be improved. I participated in that

program. The division also administered a survey during the period

of February 23 through 27 as a key step in the map objective to

solicit inputs from probate division consumers regarding probate

clerical operations and performance. Completed surveys were received from over 75 percent of the persons assisted in the probate

division on the day the surveys were administered.

The results were that more than 90 percent of the respondents

agreed or strongly agree that the services they receive in the probate division were courteous and responsive; 95 percent receive assistance within 10 minutes of waiting, and 96 percent reported

their visit was a positive experience. In any event, the MAP includes targets for improvement and we will work toward these. The

division has held customer service training and will continue in

those efforts.

I would like to go back a bit further for a few actions outlining

Chief Judge King’s written testimony and that demonstrate our responses to the concerns. Effective January 1, 2003 the panel of attorneys that the judges use to select attorneys for appointment as

fiduciaries and counsel was reconstituted. It now includes only attorneys who have supplied certification of training mandated by

the court. We now have a requirement of at least 6 credit hours

of training per year in order for attorneys to remain on the panel.

Our Judicial Education Committee has been feverishly working to

develop probate practice standards and Chief Judge King has completed the administrative order to make the standards official.

My training plans for this year include an orientation for attorneys and staff to improve their working relationship, an orientation

on the new practice standards and evaluative programs focusing on

the duties and responsibility of guardians.

Finally, we have begun planning with the probate review committee to establish a task force designed to address the issues that

they have raised. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before

you today and I present information about recent development in

the probate division as well as some of the challenges we face. I

will be pleased to answer your questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Let me start out

with a question kind of for everybody, and general question. What

44

performance goals do you set to gauge the effectiveness of the

court? And how do you measure the outcome?

Judge KING. That’s an important part of our strategic planning.

Obviously timeliness is one important measure. But there are other

subtler measures in different divisions of the court, depending on

how—depending on the subject matter that’s under consideration.

In family court, obviously there is always an issue of safety and responsiveness to the child’s needs. We are developing measures for

those various performance standards, and I hope over time we’ll

have a much more exact standard. The new computer installation,

IJIS system, is also being developed with the goal in mind of being

able to give us more easily complete reports that will allow us to

measure what we’ve done and to establish base lines against which

we can measure our project progress.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Everyone confer?

Judge SATTERFIELD. I don’t have much to add, other than, one

of the things that we are collecting data on and plan to extract

from the new system in areas for instance for safety, you know,

whether or not there has been any reoccurrence in terms of neglect

issue, whether it is the family that the child came from or with the

foster family.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I mean obviously you get another Brianna

Blackman you can have the most timely thing, but that’s——

Judge SATTERFIELD. Right. Exactly. So we have to measure that.

We have to measure the number of placements that children are

in, and we’re going to be looking at any disruption in the adoptions

that have been granted to make sure that we measure that as well.

In terms of our older kids, we want to see the number, percentage

of our kids that actually, what we call age out of the system come

down and we’ll measure how we’re doing by looking at that percentage over the years.

Judge LOPEZ. Obviously a key factor here is the management action plan and the set of goals that we have developed for each of

those goals essentially we have four key actions steps to planning

the issues that you raise. The first step will be to determine the

existing rate of compliance, at least by December 31, 2003, and we

have established that already. And then we are going to review and

revise the standards to enhance efficiency through January 2004

and through January 2005. We will publish standards within the

probate division as deemed appropriate by register of wills office,

at least by February 2005, and then we will monitor and evaluate

performance by September 2005 and annually thereafter. The goal

is at least to meet 90 percent of the established case processing

standards by fiscal year 2005.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. On the probate side, obviously your

filing deadlines are critical to tell you if things are going well,

aren’t they?

Judge LOPEZ. Very critical.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And do you have like a tickler system in

there on these, that dates have to be met by counselors in there

that—so you can police the counselors or not?

Judge LOPEZ. One of the difficulties we were having in the past

is an antiquated tickling system which will now be enhanced by

the new integrated justice information system that we expect to go

45

live this summer. And that will be the greatest improvement that

we will have that we will keep track of 100 percent of our cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I know you’re spending—all of you are

spending time and money upgrading the court’s information technology infrastructure, because ultimately that will give you the

best most current information and allow you to police this and

you’re less subject to human error and the like. Where does your

Web site fall into these plans?

Judge KING. We have, up until now, we have been borrowing a

Web site hosted by the D.C. Bar, very kindly afforded us that opportunity. Obviously that’s been an interim measure because the—

they have concerns about some limits on what we can put on. I

think the term is shovel wear. But for us it’s important large documents such as some of our rules and some of the budgets data and

things of that nature. We plan to open our own Web site in September of this year. We’ve now—we have the funding and we have

the project underway and we will be opening our own Web site,

which will play an integral part in informing the public of what

we’re doing and keeping our operations transparent.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. How many judges do you have serving the court in total? And the caseload? Can you divide that up?

I know it’s gotten a little better, hasn’t it.

Judge KING. The superior court, even with recent downturns in

caseloads, remains one of the busiest trial courts in the Nation

with highest caseloads per judge. We have—at the moment we are

passing through 60 active judges on our way back to the statutory

cap of 59 judges. That will occur—our next seating of a judge will

occur two retirements from now, if that makes sense.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is that a statutory cap that——

Judge KING. It is a statutory cap which——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Set by us or by the city?

Judge KING. By the Congress. We are hopeful that cap might be

lifted, not because we want an unlimited number of judges, but because as we stay at the 59-judge level, if vacancies then occur and

it takes us 6 months to a year to fill them, we become—it can impose real hardship. So it’s really a matter of timing. If we had the

cap lifted, we would be able to target the level of 59 in our budget

discussions with Congress, but would have the flexibility of making

sure that people were ready to take their seats as soon as the retirements or moves occur.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Why does it take 6 months to a year to

get those things?

Judge KING. It is a nomination process at the nominating commission and then it comes to the White House. They take some

time to review.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is that statutory. Or is that——

Judge KING. It’s all statutory.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So it’s our fault.

Judge KING. Of course. It’s all Congress’s fault. It’s not, and this

is not in any way—I mean it just—the process takes time.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask you this. Then, given that

statutory limit, how do you make the determination of how many

judges and the staff levels for each division?

46

Judge KING. Within the division, fortunately I didn’t have to

start from scratch. There historically has been a sort of a level of

caseloads that have dictated sort of rough parameters. The total

caseload is 135,000. There are 76,000 civil cases, 32,000 criminal,

8,500 domestic violence, 11 or almost 2,000 family court cases,

2,500 probate cases and 180 tax cases.

We have divided and, in fact, one of the things that I’m faced

with as we speak is because of that 59 cap, and because we have

committed 15 judges to the family court, I’m going to have to close

some calendars in the civil and criminal divisions, which will involve a slight delay, additional delay in processing those cases.

Those—but it’s based on the caseloads and the types and complexity of the cases is what we try to do, and we are studying integrated case management profiles to make sure that we’re getting

it right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What percent of the criminal cases are

pled out at the early stages? Most, 80, 90 percent.

Judge KING. I can get you the exact percent, but it’s something

like 90.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Otherwise, then you’d never have enough

time.

Judge KING. We would come to a grinding halt as is true of

criminal courts all over the United States.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Correct. That’s interesting. If I were to

ask—I’m just asking your opinion. How many judges would you

need to get at least on a temporary basis, I mean, to be able to get

things back to normal in terms of the docketing and the time sequence and so on.

Judge KING. If we had the—if we had the cap of 62, that would

give us the flexibility to maintain our calendars where we’d like to

see them. We could work within that—we could work within that

parameter.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Could you discuss some of the community

based operations you’ve established? You have a satellite domestic

violence unit. You have community based courts, how they’re funded and Federal grant programs that may be available if you’re

working with those. And can the information technology improvements enhance those provisions to service this community.

Judge KING. Most of these satellite and innovative courts are initially grant funded, although as we find that they are successful in

the way that the satellite domestic violence intake center has been

successful, we very much hope that they will become regularly

funded as part of our operating budget. Our efforts are in a number

of areas. The domestic violence one has been an unqualified success.

In fact, we had Mrs. Tony Blair while she was here, visit it as

pursuant to her interest in the area of domestic violence. She took

away, I think a very good impression of the way it operated. We

are working in a number of fronts in the community courts. And

the objective there is to promptly and effectively connect the offenders with services that relate to the social and other issues that contribute to criminal behavior, and the objective is to slow down the

revolving door and try to keep people from coming back to court.

47

Those efforts, again, usually are grant funded to start, but then

have come in, although the criminal community court is a rearrangement of our existing resources. So the extra resources needed

are primarily those at the back end where the services need to be

rendered. Additionally drug treatment services, mental health services and the like, many of which come through the city rather than

through our direct funding.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge Satterfield said that 86 percent of

permanency decisions are made in compliance with the deadlines,

right.

Judge SATTERFIELD. That’s of cases that were filed in 2003. The

cases that were filed in 2001 and 2002 are at 75 to 80 percent in

terms of the timeliness of having the hearing.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. What’s the problem with the 14 percent?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, the problem with the 14 percent is

that we are not getting there. We need to make sure that the

judges who get there will be put in place is through some of the

resources that you have given us, we now have an attorney advisor

office that has two attorneys that initially focus on some of the

older cases to make sure that we have those cases in compliance.

They’re going to be going forward in looking at the newer cases

that are coming up for permanency hearing. Most of our judges

may conduct them ahead of time, but they have to make sure that

they make timely findings in them and the appropriate findings

and they’re going to be tracking that and sending them notices

when they do not, sending them suggestions when they do not.

With the new integrated system they’re going to be able to just

go into the computer and look at the court orders on the screen as

opposed to pulling the jackets and those kinds of things.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, the Legal Times—and I know it’s

complicated. You know, I wanted to be a judge. I didn’t have the

political clout to be a judge so I ended up coming here. The Legal

Times reported recently that the number of abuse and neglect filings over the past 2 years has dropped by 43 percent. Can I—

what’s your perspective on this current phenomenon? Do you think

the cases are filed with the court later than they should to be ensured the well-being of the child involved, or——

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, I think there are some instances

where we have felt that cases in the magistrate judges and judges

had reported to me and that they felt that a case should have come

in the system earlier. I do not know the full explanation for it. I

know that investigations are the same. The numbers are the same.

The same numbers of call-ins that are being made to see if they’re

safe. I know that more cases are being treated. Our concern is simply though that right decisions are being made and let’s not forgo

bringing it to court just so that we won’t have a court case. If it’s

necessary for the safety to protect the children, the child and family, we need to bring it to court.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What criteria are we using to recruit family court judges?

Judge SATTERFIELD. The criteria are the criteria that’s been set

out in the statute. They have to volunteer and they have to have

48

the kind of experience that is appropriate for handling family court

cases and agreed to the term requirements——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Are you getting many volunteers?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Well, we haven’t had to seek them out since

we started family court in 2000, because we’ve not had anyone

leave except for Judge Shuker, who left due to retirement. And

then we had Judge Sattler come in after Judge Shuker. But the

judges have been staying beyond their term. We expect that we are

going to be seeking volunteers at the end of this year because some

of the judges will probably leave family court who have stayed beyond their terms. But we have not actually encountered that yet.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The D.C. courts have embarked on a very

ambitious renovation and construction project, to meet your space

needs. Can you give us an update on the status of the project? I’m

also really particularly interested in the consolidation of the efforts

of the family court and how the renovation project affects that.

Judge KING. We have developed a 10-year space needs plan, master plan for providing for our space needs, which does a couple of

things. First, it addresses all of the family court construction needs

and we understood during the discussions that led up to the Family Court Act that we had to begin operations, even if we had to

operate in the hall. And we’ve done that. There remain two steps

to complete the family court development. First is the step that’s

underway to bring the public functions into contiguous space on the

J M levels and the first floor, Indiana level at the courthouse. That

will leave some of the support functions, the clerical functions and

office support functions placed in other parts of the court building

and court complex.

Over a slightly longer term, we will be adding an envelope to the

south face of the Moultrie Building, which will provide the space

that will allow us to bring all of the family court functions into a

contiguous space. At the same time, the build out of the family

court has had impact on some of the other operations. We have,

moved landlord tenant and small claims to a separate building.

Eventually we will be moving the probate court to its own set of

courtrooms and offices. And we will be relocating things so that

each of the other branches has the same state-of-the-art contiguous

space and public access that we are now developing in the family

court. Combined with that is the restoration of the old courthouse,

which was the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia back in

the early 1800’s.

It will become the court of appeals. That is the next stage. That’s

the next phase. But—and I believe we have submitted this and I

will be happy to submit copies if there’s any question about whether you have them, a rather elaborate schedule of construction and

design phases that all work together, assuming the good Lord willing, the creek don’t rise and the Congress provides the funds.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, the first two look good.

Judge KING. The first two I can probably deal with. The third I

have no control over.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge Lopez, I know you have only been

there a short time. But the reports in the Washington Post and

other information provided to the committee reveal the importance

of the court in exercising its power to sanction lawyers and fiduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 01, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95422.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
49

ciaries to protect the rights and property of those in the care of

guardians and conservators.

What disciplinary action can you take against guardians or conservators for these violations? How often do you take these actions?

Were any sanctions imposed in those cases referenced in the Post

stories? Was anyone referred to the bar for discipline? I’ll just go

general and you can—are you satisfied with these sanctions that

they are sufficient to deter a disregard for the filing requirements

and would you suggest any additional sanctions.

Judge LOPEZ. The sanctions that we have for the attorneys is,

No. 1, remove them from the list of attorneys that will be appointed any further cases in the future, in addition, refer the attorneys to bar counsel who then takes on the responsibility for deciding what kind of sanction or discipline to impose. In addition, in

some cases and this was one of these that was reported in the

Washington Post, I have had the necessity to refer the matter to

the U.S. Attorneys Office for Prosecution.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you need any other tools. Do you think

that those are enough tools to wake up the bar? In terms of sanctions and so on.

Judge LOPEZ. I believe so. I believe that one of the real difficulties we had was in catching up with the culprits at an early stage,

and I think that with our IJIS system, we will be able to catch up

with the attorneys and their filing in such a timely fashion that we

should not have many more of those problems in the future.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. How about, I mean, you do have contempt

authority, right.

Judge LOPEZ. We have contempt authority and when they are in

violation of a court order, the contempt authority can also be used

as a sanction.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Has it been used in any of these cases, to

your knowledge?

Judge LOPEZ. Yeah. None of these cases has been used because

in none of the cases the violations have been from a perspective of

contempt of court, but rather a violation of their fiduciary duties

and as such, they have been referred to the bar counsel.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is this widespread or is this just a few attorneys?

Judge LOPEZ. Oh, it is very few. Very few and right now, I would

venture to say probably none.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So a handful of them give the whole court

a bad name basically.

Judge LOPEZ. Essentially.

Judge KING. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add one thing. In response to some of the problems that were highlighted in the press,

I issued an administrative order that basically stopped compensation to any of the lawyers who were serving as fiduciaries in—until

all of their reporting requirements had been met on a current

basis. We are in the stages of revising that so that we’re not caught

up in punishing trivial infractions or trivial delays. But the objective basically, I think, has been accomplished and will be maintained that if you want to practice law in the probate division,

you’re going to have to do it on time.

50

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Judge Lopez, I just have one other question. According to your testimony, about 40 percent of the conservatorship accounts have substantial deficiencies. That sounds

pretty high. You know, from my perspective. I didn’t do much probate before I came here, but what sort of guidance did the court

offer to conservators to prepare conservatorship plans, inventories

of accounts? Do you provide anything like the guides that are provided, like the Fairfax County Clerk’s Office has a huge handbook

for guardians and conservators, the administration of estates, that

they hand out that make it pretty clear, forms, everything else. Do

you have anything like that?

Judge LOPEZ. Yes, we do. All of the attorneys—all of the attorneys who before they can participate as a fiduciary and appointed,

they must take the 6-hour program when we have documented materials booklets that we provide for them on the process and how

they must proceed.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So they go through that and they get all

the documents and stuff?

Judge LOPEZ. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you have enough—is there a shortage

of qualified guardians and conservators?

Judge LOPEZ. I don’t believe we have a shortage of qualified

guardians. And I believe that the most significant thing and what

we have been doing is training them so they can understand and

appreciate what their duties and responsibilities are and we continue to work on training them in that area.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. How about for the public? Some of the—

the stuff I just held up from the Fairfax court is available to the

public. This is what the public gets as well. It is a nice policing action, if you will. It keeps them——

Judge LOPEZ. We have had certain brochures that we were assisted in drafting these brochures by counsel for court excellence,

and I helped to develop some of those brochures. And in our map,

one of these goals to develop a variety of informational materials

such as brochures and checklists for litigants and for court users

to be sure that we can get enough to all of them as they come and

get appointed to the cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I mean, there’s never a shortage of lawyers. I mean, we know that. But I mean my question is, you don’t

think there is a shortage of qualified guardians and conservators

and there’s people who are really qualified, so we really don’t need

fee payment increases or anything to get more good people into it.

Judge LOPEZ. I don’t see a shortage in that respect, no, sir.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s fine. Ms. Norton.

Judge KING. If I might just add, there is one thing. There was,

I think in some of the testimony today reference to whether a—

there might be a social worker or other professional on staff in

order to assist guardians, and particularly nonlawyer guardians.

That frankly is not an idea that we have pursued, but it is one that

would certainly be willing to consider and we are working closely

with the bar. We are, in fact, setting up a task force to look at

some of the questions and issues that they have and that will be

an opportunity for us to determine if something of that nature

might be a helpful remedy.

51

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin with you, Judge King.

First of all, let me congratulate you and Judge Satterfield for the

very considerable efforts. I have seen these efforts from beginning

to end. I have seen the court change very substantially and in the

process of rebuilding the Family Division from the ground up because the changes are just that extensive. They involve every aspect not only in the distribution of cases but interface with another

agency entirely, the CFSA, and not to mention the very complicated work of computerization so that parts of the court talk

with one another.

Let me assure you that chairman who has a long history of respecting the home rule and I don’t sit to see if we can find problems with the courts. The reason we are having this hearing is because problems have come out. This, of course, as I indicated in my

opening statement, was how we learned about Brianna Blackman

and let me tell you why I find that troubling as a predicate to my

own statement.

I encourage the Congress to let DCPDC take care of itself. The

Council, of course, does much more rigorous oversight for what it

does. This committee has to do the oversight for the courts.

Now we wouldn’t have known a thing about needed changes in

the Probate Division if the Washington Post hadn’t done our job for

us. That is very troubling when it comes to court. But what it does

is to turn back to us and say, well, maybe we ought to be rummaging through this court a lot more.

My question to you is, having seen problems with the Family Division first and now with the Probate Division embarrass the

courts, frankly, because they became—I mean, Brianna

Blackman—I think the woman won a Pulitzer Prize and now we

had long, absolutely astounding revelations, absolutely astounding

revelations about court oversight of people who were entirely dependent upon lawyers who I can only call crooked, doing everything

from stealing money to paying absolutely no attention as members

of the bar to what they were supposed to do.

My question to you is whether or not the court is prepared to

look at each and every division of the court just as you have now

looked at the Family Division and done a magnificent job. Now you

are looking at the Probate Division, and I see very substantial

changes there. But I tell you, we wake up and see reports about

the Criminal Division or the Civil Division. Then, you know, what

we do is reduce the confidence of the Congress and the entire court,

even if the court does what you have so ably done with the Family

Division and now are undertaking the Probate Division.

I want to know whether there’s any way for the superior court

to self-initiate a look at all of its divisions and send to us in advance a written report about what that self-initiation shows. I am

quite beyond probate and family court, because I see that action is

under way there. I am now asking the court to be proactive and

asking you whether or not such a review of each and every division

of the court can be undertaken before the Washington Post—who

is always rummaging for stuff like this, because that is their job,

52

too—having seen what has happened in two divisions then goes

looking to other divisions to see if they can find similar problems.

Judge KING. I appreciate the question; and, as a senior administrator, I would obviously want to—I would hope to be engaged in

addressing a problem before the Washington Post gets to it. I am

very hopeful that the strategic planning process that we are engaged in now will do just that.

Ms. NORTON. I notice that in your testimony. Does it do a topto-bottom review, including whether the whole thing ought to be reorganized?

Judge KING. It is top to bottom and back again.

I would point out we did do a thorough review and revision in

the Civil Division 10 years ago that was on the magnitude of the

family court reauthorization. The Criminal Division is now under

study.

Ms. NORTON. Is that how we got the review of the Civil Division?

Was one of the outcomes of that the alternative dispute resolution?

Judge KING. Correct. That was one of the initiatives.

Another principal one was that we went from a master calendar

system to individual calendars, and the result was that we took a

year out of the delay from filing to trial in civil cases on the average, and we reduced the backlog from 30,000 cases down to a more

or less current level of 8,000 to 10,000.

Ms. NORTON. This is quite extraordinary, but it was done on your

own initiative. I know, of course, about the ADR as being one of

the best of the country and a real model for the country.

Judge KING. That’s correct. I certainly hope we can bring that

same level of attention to whatever we find in the Criminal Division as well. We are looking at case management approaches. We

are working closely with other city agencies and other justice agencies to see where we can improve operations there.

Ms. NORTON. Civil Division has highly paid members of the bar

watching the court. The Criminal Division, the Probate Division

may not be in the same position as other divisions of the court. In

any case, I appreciate what you have said because I think proactive

work on the court is perhaps the most effective.

I am sorry, Judge Lopez, is there something you wanted to add?

Judge LOPEZ. No, ma’am.

Ms. NORTON. Judge Satterfield, perhaps you can explain what

looks like a discrepancy in the report of the GAO on an issue that

I indicated was of some interest to me; and that is, you know, flowing from Brianna Blackman, we are particularly concerned with

foster children, the most unfortunate children in any society, children without any parents.

Now according—I am just trying to reconcile what the GAO report said. Timely permanency hearings were held for 25 percent of

the cases in 2001. On page 9, it says, in 2001, 80 percent of the

cases had a permanency hearing or were dismissed. That is a huge

discrepancy, and I wonder if you could explain it. This one is

from—the rest of your sentence is 75 percent of the cases had a

permanency hearing or were dismissed within the 425-day deadline. Now, you know, maybe this is just a statistical—but I would

like to know how you would explain that difference.

53

Judge SATTERFIELD. Part of the data that GAO analyzes is partial data, cases that were filed in 2002. They did their report last

year, mostly in the fall of last year, when they completed the data

collection. In this instance, this is a fluid situation where every day

a case is coming up that requires a permanency hearing or the

data was not complete due to no fault of anybody, just by the fact

that the report had to be completed and due to Congress in January of this year.

We have reported in our family court annual reports our complete data for each year, 2001 and 2002. I know that the source of

some of the information that GAO used was from the Council for

Court Excellence, and they are coming out with their report soon,

which I think is going to have another complete picture of how we

are doing in terms of handling the timeliness of the hearing as well

as in terms of having quality permanency hearings.

Ms. NORTON. In the GAO report, 55 percent had permanency

hearings. And 55 percent in September—I don’t know what that

means. Month of September or by September 2002, where you say

75 percent. And in 2002, 75 percent. I mean, I don’t know. We got

to get on the same page with these statistics so that they are using

the same calendar year or same fiscal year or whatever.

Judge SATTERFIELD. They had to stop collecting data in the middle of the year. So not all of the 2002 cases that were due permanency hearing, they had not occurred because it wasn’t required

yet. Once we look at the complete data—and I think the Council

for Court Excellence report is going to add some clarity to this as

well as the chief judge.

In response to the GAO report on that point, we wrote a letter

that’s attached to the GAO report and gave our view trying to clarify that information that was listed on that page. I see where the

concern is and how it is listed on that page in terms of the chart,

but we believe that was partial data in that the—what we were reporting in our annual report and what you will see in the CCE report truly reflect how we’re doing in terms of having timely hearings, and it will be up for those years in the 75 to 80 percent range

of having timely hearings.

Ms. NORTON. So timeliness is not a problem?

Judge SATTERFIELD. We are not 100 percent.

Ms. NORTON. Nobody is 100 percent. If, in fact, your own figures

are the current ones, you are very close to where—it was a B if you

were undergraduate.

The GAO talks about permanency hearings within 12 months,

and in your testimony you said it had their hearing within the 14

months’ statutory deadline. Explain that difference.

Judge SATTERFIELD. The law requires that we have a permanency hearing within 12 months of a child being placed in foster

care. Under the District law, if the child is placed foster care, you

add 60 days to that because the law requires that you add 60 days.

Ms. NORTON. Say that again, please.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Child is deemed to have been placed in foster care 60 days after the child had been removed from the home

and then you start counting the 12 months.

Ms. NORTON. Who said so?

Judge SATTERFIELD. The law. The statute.

54

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you about what was of particular concern to the Congress and that was the relationship between CFSA,

child family support, and the court. In the testimony at page 17,

I can’t get a sense of where you are. You say you have established

electronic interface. You say that you found additional opportunities for exchange of information. And I don’t know whether this is

a work in progress or whether substantial interface occurs and I

can press a button if I am a caseworker or I can press a button

if I am a judge or have my clerk do so and find out all the information. How close are you to completing computer interface with

CFSA?

Judge SATTERFIELD. I wish we could press a button, too, but we

are not there. We have to work with the requirements of the District Safe Passage Act because they are coming up with the system

that will sort of warehouse for all the information to come into.

But what we have done to enhance our ability with CFSA to exchange information electronically, we have already been giving

them schedules of the hearings electronically and giving them information such as that. They scan their orders into their system—

our orders into their system. What we are working on is working

on e-filings so their orders can be sent to them. They can send us

their court reports electronically.

We are working with Office of Corporation Council, but there are

impediments there because that office doesn’t have the computer—

the type of technology and enough power in their computer or their

servers in order to work on some of the things we need to do with

them. It is taking some time, but we are moving in the right direction and moving forward on it.

Ms. NORTON. I am entirely sympathetic with the computer problem, particularly if you are dependent on the District, because they

had to throw out one old system and start all over again.

I do want you to be in touch with my office. I regard—among the

things they are using computers for, nothing could be more important than your work; and the Congress places very substantial priority on that. So I wish you would be in touch with us if you think

we could be helpful to you.

Judge SATTERFIELD. They have always been at the table trying

to increase our exchange of information and not to delay. They are

also part of a larger system that is being built in the District.

Ms. NORTON. The problem is with not with CFSA. It is probably

above their pay grade if they are trying to get into the system. You

and they are joined at the hip on this issue, so it may be someplace

else trying to hook in various parts of the D.C. government.

Judge KING. If I might, Congresswoman Norton, two things that

we are doing, we are doing the best we can, regardless of the environment that we are in. First, in choosing our IJIS contractor, we

chose as universal a platform as we could, in other words, so that

whatever the District ended up developing we would have a relatively easy time connecting in and sharing data.

The other thing is that we have piggybacked on a new system

on the criminal justice side, a justice information exchange system

and allowed CFSA to use that.

Ms. NORTON. Is that temporary?

55

Judge KING. Temporarily—and that is successful. They have become one of the heaviest users of that system because it provides

a way of sharing data.

Ms. NORTON. That is excellent, trying to find another way to do

it. Appreciate you trying to get around the usual bureaucratic barriers.

I have a special interest in one subject, and that is drug abuse.

Drug abuse, often minor drug crimes, that is to say crimes that do

not involve violence, are chiefly responsible for the filling of the

courts, particularly of black men of color and now—increasingly

now black women, who are often the guardians of these children.

History will write—the mandatory minimums, thank goodness

we don’t have those in the District of Columbia. We have our own

system of judging how much time will be spent. But history will

write that the Congress of the United States is chiefly responsible

for the fact that 75 percent of African American children are born

to single women and increasingly other families are involved in the

same cycle. It is one of the crimes of our age.

There are a huge number of women who are entering the system,

and those women are almost entirely there because of drug abuse,

often because they are related to some man, I must say, but often

to get money, because they are ill-equipped to work and live in

inner cities where the only job is running drugs.

Now, therefore, I am particularly interested in this family treatment court. GAO found that one of the chief barriers that the family court faced in meeting its goals was the shortage of substance

and treatment services. I would like to know what this shortage—

whether you are dependent upon the city’s treatment services. How

do you get a mother whose chief problem with her child is neglect

because of drug abuse into the system and whether this family

treatment court gets you any priority when the District is completely overrun with calls for treatment, as are most cities in the

United States.

Judge SATTERFIELD. The funding for family treatment court,

which has been in existence for about a year now, consists of—we

have a grant that provides for—the family treatment court coordinator is hired by the court, but this program is in partnership with

CFSA. They have provided money.

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me. This is money you have applied for

from the Federal Government?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Yes. Court improvement grant that we had

that we are using for our coordinator position. But the actual treatment part of it for the women in the family treatment court and

the residential treatment facility, that money came out of CFSA’s

budget, and they took it to their drug abuse agency, and that is

where that is coming from. We have been promised that this program will continue.

Ms. NORTON. You got money for the grant. The grant comes from

the Federal Government.

Judge SATTERFIELD. For the coordinator position, the coordinator

we have hired to help us administer this program.

Ms. NORTON. I am not interested in that. I am interested in the

treatment money. Is there money for treatment that is independent

from the District of Columbia?

56

Judge SATTERFIELD. No.

Ms. NORTON. My God.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Just yesterday—we have a juvenile drug

court, and we use the Psychiatric Institute of Washington to do detoxification for our juveniles, and they have been receiving funding

from APRA to do that. I received a call yesterday saying that’s

going to stop in May, and that impacts on us getting the youth in

the juvenile court—most of them test positive for marijuana and/

or PCP—to get them started and clean so that they come in with

a clear mind to the juvenile court and go through the treatment

process. That is always something that is an obstacle in trying to

get this service in place in addition to getting mental health evaluations in place sooner and therapy.

Ms. NORTON. I am going to say what I said to Judge King: You

ought to look proactively at things before somebody decides that

they got to rummage through the court’s affairs. You are already

beginning to see this happen, not to the court but to Oak Hill, and

that is going to lead them right back to the court. Because what

they found was that many of these children have drug abuse problems, and somebody’s going to look at their commitment and somehow drag the courts into this. And we know the problems have

originated right there as well.

But I want to know, in light of what you have just said, that essentially you just got dibs on the District system, how is this family

treatment court able to operate and to achieve results and indeed

what have been the results. I mean, not how many people have

gone through the system but what kinds of successes, how many

people get in, do they get in immediately, what is the wait—that

kind of information would be helpful.

Judge SATTERFIELD. I can give you some of that now.

We just started having a waiting list now. It took awhile for the

program to get up to speed. We were a little concerned in the beginning that we weren’t getting enough mothers because we knew

that there was a huge substance problem.

Ms. NORTON. What happened? You didn’t get the money for the

coordinator?

Judge SATTERFIELD. It wasn’t the money issue. It was just parents choosing to come in. We would say, you can stay with your

child if you come in this program; and some parents would say,

take my child.

Ms. NORTON. Why would they say that?

Judge SATTERFIELD. Because they are not ready to cure their illness.

Ms. NORTON. Well, then they said the right thing.

Judge SATTERFIELD. And we would take their child. But the ones

who have agreed and saw the benefits of it, now we have a waiting

list.

Ms. NORTON. Is there counseling so the mother understands

what she’s doing and it is hard for everybody to beat a drug problem?

Judge SATTERFIELD. They go through a rigorous presentation in

the family treatment court when we deem that case to be eligible.

Ms. NORTON. A child is taken on a temporary basis? She may

lose the child altogether.

57

Judge SATTERFIELD. The child is removed—even when the mother is going into the program, we remove the child initially while

the mother goes through the detoxification.

Ms. NORTON. I’m talking about the mother who says, you have

to take my child because I can’t——

Judge SATTERFIELD. We take the child and we go through the

case like any other case in terms of moving toward permanency.

Ms. NORTON. You have to do it. But——

Judge KING. Before you—as you will be leaving shortly, on the

topic on funding for drug treatment, all of our community court efforts depend on a similar—ultimately, on the city’s supply of drug

treatment options; and we are very concerned that continue because, obviously, we can’t——

Ms. NORTON. Because now we don’t have a sense of what the call

on drug treatment will be, because women have only gotten to the

point where they—this is something you really need to draw to our

attention. Of all the parts of the system—and I don’t know how the

District decides on priorities. But of all the parts of the system,

double damage is done here, because you have the drug-addicted

mother and then you have the possibility of a child losing a parent—I should say triple—and then going to a foster home, and we

don’t have enough foster homes. This is a terrible thing to have

happen to a child, although I must applaud what you are doing.

This women isn’t ready. We are not adding this child to the list

of casualties of that family. This child has to be given the best possible chance.

But what interests me—and when I say proactive, I mean bring

things also to our attention early. For example, if in fact there developed—let me ask you first, you are able to get these mothers

treatment right away.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Right away, because they immediately go

from detoxification into the residential program.

Ms. NORTON. In terms of depending on the District to let you in,

the District lets you in right away.

Judge SATTERFIELD. The contract we have for the family treatment court, which is for a total of 36 women throughout the year

that the treatment court has been existence, the facility can only

hold up to 18 women at a time and up to four children per woman.

Ms. NORTON. That money has been set aside.

Judge SATTERFIELD. That money has been set aside, and we have

been told that this program has been obligated for next year.

Ms. NORTON. The court has its own special treatment program

for these women?

Judge SATTERFIELD. In partnership with CFSA.

Ms. NORTON. With their own contractor.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Contractor that they hired.

Ms. NORTON. All I am asking then is, don’t let this program develop a backlog before you inform me as your representative. If we

can somehow—I am also not for fooling around with these women.

I am not just saying, here’s your second and third time for neglect

of a child, and you end up with a Brianna Blackman. But I certainly think that the harm done to going into the foster child system, the extraordinary harm done just to the child—children would

58

often even prefer to be with a drug-addicted mother. And I am

sorry, we can’t let that happen, and we certainly won’t.

Judge SATTERFIELD. We will extend the invitation to you, Congresswoman Norton and Chairman Davis, to visit the residential

facility out in southeast.

Ms. NORTON. That I would like to do. But I think that we got

to keep a priority on that. We got to keep the funds there. You say

it is only 18 at a time. Does that mean we don’t have other people

waiting to get in?

Judge SATTERFIELD. We have people currently waiting to get in.

Because one of the problems that we do encounter is that there are

housing problems for some of the women when they leave, and we

want to make sure they have appropriate housing. Doesn’t make

any sense to have them in that facility for 6 months with their children and only have to remove their children because they don’t

have adequate housing.

Ms. NORTON. That is another problem that you have to work

with CFSA.

Judge SATTERFIELD. Yes. That’s the issue that we’re working

with D.C. Housing Authority, to have adequate housing when the

women are ready to graduate out of the residential phase of the

program.

Ms. NORTON. Absolute priority it seems to me.

I’m interested in the young people who age out. Everybody is

about to lose jurisdiction of these children, and, of course, you hear

all these stories, anecdotal, but we know from some of our agencies

that these children sometimes end up homeless and the rest.

Would you tell us about your so-called benchmark permanency

hearing pilot program?

Judge SATTERFIELD. You are absolutely correct. What we see

from young people across the country, some are committing suicide

or some don’t have a home to go to, much like our kids would have

a home to come back to when they go out to college or otherwise

and some have no support. Because we have about a 20 to 25 percent caseload of children that may age out of the system, we decided to embark on this project that we have seen happen in Cook

County in Chicago, IL, where we have benchmark hearings.

We start out with one of our magistrate judges, and it is designed to sit down in a formal setting with the judge and members

of CFSA. If mental health is an issue, mental health people are

there; if drugs are an issue, they are there; and to really start to

develop certain projects with the child that will lead the youth to

independence. Even as simple as you come back in 2 weeks with

your driver’s license or you come back with a banking account,

those types of things we are doing with the child in order to improve that. We are asking them to identify someone who can be

around when they age out so they can go back to for support, and

we start developing a relationship with that person and having

that person come to court.

Ms. NORTON. This is so important. Sometimes the State, the District of Columbia, the court, has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into making sure this child emerges whole at 18 or 21, and

then it goes away because of aging out.

59

Let me go through—the chairman is gone for a few minutes. I

am interested in your report back on the family treatment court.

I want to know not simply how many people go in. I want to know

if it takes—if the treatment takes, how many—how successful is

the treatment? What is the followup?

You know, it takes me a long time and a lot of willpower not to

engage in sweets, because I have a sweet tooth. I can’t imagine

what it must be to get off drugs.

You have to tell us what you call success. For example, one way

to look at a success is a woman who has been free and has had

her child for a year and our followup shows there is no abuse and

neglect. That seems to me is very important. That’s the way you

improve a program.

Let me go quickly here. I asked for this, and I would like a report

back to the chairman and to me on that question.

I’d ask a similar report back on the ADR. I was very pleased at

the way family court is using ADR. If you can avoid formal court

proceedings, the better. I’d like a report on—if you don’t have these

statistics now, are these agreements kept? You can settle the case.

If you are a lawyer, you settle the case. You are a member of the

bar, keeping an agreement. When you have an agreement, ADR

agreement, you are dealing with people at various levels of education, of experience. I’d like you to report back on, again, what is

a success on ADR with the family court? Do, in fact, these agreements hold up when lay people have to understand, you know,

when you sign this, you are signing a legal document?

Let me go quickly to the probate court. Geez, this was a shock.

This is pretty terrible. I appreciate, Judge King, that you handled

quickly with the judicial order this matter.

For example, that you have to certify that you have recently

checked on a client’s health, accounted for the money, no new appointments, if there had been ethical complaints, of course, you always depended upon the register of wills. Register of wills wasn’t

the best steward reporting to the court. There is concern that people who are dishonest, that work on the margins enough to do

some of what was reported in the Post might also say to the court,

yes, I’m doing exactly what you say. I’m checking on the client’s

health. I’m reporting in to the register of wills, etc. Have these declarations, these affidavits, in fact, improved the underlying concern, considering that they are self-declarations and the court can’t

go around obviously and do an investigation of each attorney? How

do you know that what people declare that they have recently

checked on their client’s health, fully accounted for the money and

so forth, is in fact being carried out by members of the bar who

were engaged—some of them—in criminal acts?

Judge LOPEZ. As far as the money is concerned, the accounting

the conservator must file must be submitted with supporting documentation, bank statements, canceled checks.

Ms. NORTON. The money is clear. I have checked on this person,

the health of this person.

Judge LOPEZ. That one depends on the ethics of the individual.

Ms. NORTON. Why shouldn’t it depend on the health? Hasn’t—for

example, isn’t everybody entitled, assuming there is enough funds

involved, to a physical once a year? You and I get a physical once

60

a year. Shouldn’t an attorney who has responsibility for an adult

or a child who can’t take care of himself have to submit something?

Judge LOPEZ. I fully agree with you, and one of the things we

are exploring is to find a method to do some kind of physical auditing of cases of the guardianships. A variety of suggestions have

been made by the bar, and we are going to work with them to find

some kind of method that will be satisfactory in order to have some

kind of physical audit of the reports of the guardian to fully satisfy

ourselves.

Ms. NORTON. There is a limit on what you can do there, and

some of it can be spot checking and the rest. I do urge you to look

for what you’d look for for funds. You have to have a receipt, and

you have to think about what that would be.

But I gave as an example that there has been a physical. That

can’t be the entire thing, but at least you will know that the person

is in good health. I’m not sure that having a family member or

friend would do any better. I mean, such people can be dishonest

as well, but there are jurisdictions that require you to go there first

before you go to training. Do you have preference on that matter,

whether it is a family member or friend or a lawyer?

Judge LOPEZ. The statutory requirement is that we give preference to family members with the discretion as to whether or not

there are available family members that would be available to perform the function or family members that we can, after interviewing, believe that they will follow through in performing the function, because otherwise we wind up appointing a member of the

bar.

Ms. NORTON. What percentage of these cases can be handled by

relatives or friends?

Judge LOPEZ. Well, I think 100 percent could be handled by relative or friends if they are relatives or friends that are willing to

perform.

Ms. NORTON. No. I’m sorry. I am asking for your results. I am

asking for how many of these cases are being handled—what percentage of these cases are being handled by relatives or friends?

Judge LOPEZ. That statistic I do not have, but I can provide it.

Ms. NORTON. If you would, I would appreciate it.

[The information referred to follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Ms. NORTON. How are you assuring that the register of wills is

doing his or her job? These people report still to the register of

wills.

Judge LOPEZ. Yes. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. That person, in turn, didn’t always report these results to you.

Judge LOPEZ. The register of wills is the administrative arm of

the Probate Division. They have auditors to audit the reports and

provide the court any irregularities that appear in the reports,

which includes also in the accounting—any irregularities that appear in the accounting that will be reported to the court.

Ms. NORTON. Just—so you are monitoring the register of wills

just as much as you are monitoring the lawyers.

Judge KING. If I may add, I know that some of the problems that

were talked about publicly were—didn’t get through. That is obviously—the entire division has to tighten up on that. Ultimately, at

the end of the day, all but one or two of those problems were discovered first by the court. The Post published them, but we discovered them first and were aware of them.

Ms. NORTON. You were aware of them in the order that you

issued only after it was reported by the courts. It should have been

issued long before the Post got ahold of it, Judge.

Judge KING. Unfortunately, not enough ahead of time to have

cured it by the time the Post got ahold of it. My only point is it

wasn’t a complete breakdown. It was we didn’t get to it as soon as

we must.

Ms. NORTON. That goes to my question about proactive work.

Judge KING. I couldn’t agree more.

The other thing is that the decisions in the probate court are

made by judges, not by the register of wills.

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about the information flow. Just as

you are dependent upon CFSA, therefore, we had to interface the

register of wills to do his job.

Look, one more question. Mr. Chairman wants to get on the next

panel. One more question.

What was really so alarming about what the Post reported was

their notion that this tight group of lawyers all knew each other,

they recommended each other for court appointments, that often

these appointments were the only source of the person’s practice.

One of the judges who got into the greatest trouble was—one of the

busiest lawyers appointed 70 times, $118,000 in fees, rarely disciplined, etc.

Is this work being spread out so that folks are not asking for recommendations from other folks who are scratching each other’s

backs? And why should it simply go to folks who need the money

in order to be in practice at all? Why shouldn’t it be spread out

among lawyers of all kind, including some who are very busy but

who regard this as important work to be done? And what are you

doing to make sure you diversify the bar that does this work?

Judge LOPEZ. We maintain that fiduciary list of attorneys that

are qualified for appointment of cases.

Ms. NORTON. You insist upon training now.

Judge LOPEZ. Correct. The way we are going on appointment is

essentially going alphabetically down the list. Every so often we

70

will skip the list and go to another name, simply where we have

a case that has certain complexity that a certain attorney is prepared to handle that complexity. Otherwise, we just go alphabetically on the list.

Ms. NORTON. So it means that you won’t get reappointed for a

long time then?

Judge LOPEZ. Exactly.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your indulgence.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

I want to thank this panel for your indulgence. I think we covered a lot of ground on this. We appreciate the job you are doing

and look forward to continue to work with you.

Call up our second panel. We have Cornelia Ashby, the Director

of Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, from GAO;

Mr. Elliott Hall, chairman of the Council for Court Excellence;

Rhonda Dahlman, esquire, the Legal Counsel for the Elderly,

American Association of Retired Persons; Mr. Nicholas Ward, esquire, former chairman, Guardian and Conservator Committee, the

District of Columbia Bar Association; and Michael Curtin, esquire,

the former deputy register of wills, member of the District of Columbia Bar Association.

It is our committee’s policy that we swear all witnesses in before

your testimony. Thank you for sticking with us. You can see from

some of the questions I think you know where our anxieties are.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We have Ms. Ashby. We will start with

you and give your report. We try to stay to 5 minutes. Obviously,

we didn’t stay to our 5 minutes on the questions, but we are a little

lax. So thank you for your work on this, and I will start with you.

STATEMENTS OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ELLIOTT S. HALL, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL FOR COURT EXCELLENCE; RHONDA

DAHLMAN, ESQUIRE, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE ELDERLY,

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS; NICHOLAS

WARD, ESQUIRE, FORMER CHAIRMAN, GUARDIAN AND CONSERVATOR COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION; AND MICHAEL F. CURTIN, ESQUIRE, FORMER DEPUTY REGISTER OF WILLS, MEMBER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BAR

Ms. ASHBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here

today to discuss the progress the family court has made in complying with the D.C. Family Court Act. My comments are based on

our January 2004, report on the superior and family courts’ implementation of the act and the report we issued in May 2003, at the

request of this committee on CFSA’s performance.

The family court met established timeframes for transferring

child welfare cases into the family court. As of November 2003,

only 30 of approximately 3,500 cases that were to be transferred

to the family court remained outside the family court and had not

been closed. According to information provided by the superior

court, the cases remaining outside the family court involved chilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 01, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95422.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
71

dren with emotional or educational disabilities, who on average

were 14 years old and had been in foster care for 8 years, nearly

three times the average number of years in care for a child in the

District.

In addition to transferred cases, the family court is responsible

for the routine handling of all newly filed child welfare cases.

The chart to my right shows the steps for managing child abuse

and neglect cases in the D.C. Family Court. That chart is also in

our statement.

The family court has decreased the timeframes for resolving

abuse and neglect cases. For example, between 2001 and 2003, the

median time to begin adjudication hearings to determine whether

the evidence supported abuse and neglect allegations declined more

than 80 percent. Similarly, the median days to begin disposition to

establish immediate placement for children declined about 80 percent.

Despite these declines, the family court has not achieved full

compliance with the asked-for requirement to hold permanency

hearings within 12 months of a child’s placement in foster care.

However, the percentage of cases with timely permanency hearings

increased from 25 percent in March 2001, to 55 percent in September 2002; and perhaps during the question period I can give our

perspective on why our percentages differ from those of the court.

Although the presence of additional magistrate judges has increased the family court’s ability to process additional cases in a

timely manner, court officials have said other factors have also improved the court’s timeliness. However, barriers continue to impede

the family court’s full achievement of asked-for compliance. Among

these barriers are lengthy waits for housing, which might take up

to a year, and the need for parents to receive mental health services or, as you pointed out, substance abuse treatment before they

can reunite with the child.

In addition, associate and magistrate judges cited factors that

have affected the court’s ability to fully implement the one-family,

one-judge concept. Family identification of all cases involving the

same child depends on access to complete, timely and accurate

data; and that is the superior court’s new case management system. The working relationship between family court and CFSA has

improved. As presiding Judge Satterfield told us earlier, family

court and CFSA communicate frequently about day-to-day operations as well as long-term plans involving foster care case management and related court priorities.

However, family court judges and CFSA officials noted several

hindrances that constrain their working relationship. Such hindrances include the need for case workers to balance court appearances with other case management duties and differing opinions

about the responsibilities of CFSA case workers and judges.

The D.C. courts have made progress in preparing permanent

space for the family court. As Chief Justice King said, the first

phase of the family court construction project scheduled for completion in July 2004, will consolidate family court support services and

provide additional courtrooms, hearing rooms and judges’ chambers. In addition, the project will provide an expanded mayor’s liaiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:11 Sep 01, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95422.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
72

son office which coordinates family court services for families and

the new family waiting areas as well as other facilities.

The Superior Court in the District of Columbia is exchanging

some data and making progress toward developing capability to

share data among their respective information systems. For example, in August 2003, the superior court began using IJIS to provide

CFSA and the Office of the Corporation Council with information

on the date, time and location of scheduled court proceedings.

While the court has made progress, it has not yet resolved several critical issues we first reported in August 2002. According to

the program manager, the District’s Office of Chief Technology officer will work to resolve the issues we raised in our August 2002,

report and incorporate the solutions into its plans.

In conclusion, while the superior court, family court and the District have made progress in implementing the D.C. Family Court

Act, several issues continue to impede the court’s progress in meeting all requirements of the act. Barriers such as the lack of substance abuse services hinder the court’s ability to more quickly

process cases. While the superior court and the District have made

progress in exchanging information, it remains paramount that

their plans fully address several critical issues.

Finally, while progress has been made in enhancing the working

relationship between the family court and CFSA, this is an area

that requires continuous vigilance and improvement in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the District’s children.

Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Norton, this concludes my

statement. I will be glad to answer any questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Congresswoman

Norton and other members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the Council for Court Excellence to provide testimony at today’s

hearing. My name is Elliott Hall, and I have served as Chair of the

CCE since June of last year. I am honored to present the views of

the Council to this committee.

For the record, let me summarize the mission of the Council for

Court Excellence.

The Council is a District of Columbia nonpartisan, nonprofit civic

organization that has worked for over 20 years to improve the administration of justice in the local and Federal courts and related

agencies in the Washington, DC, area.

Let me begin by discussing the family court. The Council for

Court Excellence is about to publish a comprehensive report on the

performance of the District of Columbia’s child protection system.

The report addresses the city’s compliance with the Adoption and

Safe Families Act and the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001. The report is based on comprehensive research the Council conducted in

the second half of 2003 with generous funding from Congress.

In summary, the Council’s research shows that neglected or

abused D.C. children are in far better hands now than they were

a few years ago. In the aggregate, the city’s child protection system

is performing at a far higher level than before, though there is still

a need for improvement overall. It is also worth remembering that

improved overall performance can never guarantee against bad occurrences in individual cases.

The CCE report documents steadily increasing compliance rates

with Federal and DC ASFA deadlines. That increased compliance

no doubt has been aided recently by the significantly improved

practices and procedures implemented as required by the Family

Court Act. The report also documents nearly complete compliance

with each requirement of the Family Court Act, though progress is

slower on the Mayor’s Safe Passage data system.

Even more important, the case-processing improvements are beginning to translate into shorter stays in foster care for many D.C.

children. Data from 2002 and 2003 indicate that those children

who can safely be reunited with their families are going home in

less than 1 year’s time. This is a significant improvement from preD.C. ASFA days when it took nearly 2 years to reunify children

with their families.

While some important questions remain unanswered, the CCE

report is largely a good news story. Additional work must be done

to ensure better outcomes for all neglected or abused children, but

D.C. child welfare system leaders deserve praise for the excellent

work they have done to date. The Mayor, the D.C. Council and

Congress also deserve praise for increasing both local and Federal

funding to this system. Those investments are producing better

outcomes for the city’s neglected and abused children.

Now for the Probate Division, adult guardianship and conservatorship. On June 15 and 16 of last year, the Washington Post

published a series on the D.C. adult guardianship and conservatorship system which extensively researched and documented lax

oversight by the court of adult wards of the court and patterns of

99

neglect by some of the D.C. Superior Court’s Probate Division panel

of approved attorneys who are eligible for such appointments.

On June 17, 2003, the chief judge of the D.C. Superior Court

issued an administrative order relating to Probate Division panels

and oversight. That order sought to address some of the issues in

the Post articles.

On June 19, 2003, the Council joined the Bar Association of D.C.

to form a Probate Review Committee to discuss the issues raised

by the articles. The Review Committee issued its final report in

late February to Chief Judge King but the report has not been

made public, pending action by the D.C. Superior Court.

The report offers recommendations addressing selected Probate

Division administrative and operating procedures, including providing direct judicial oversight of guardianship and conservator reports; enhancing communication between the probate bar, the

bench and Probate Division staff; suspending or disqualifying from

the fiduciary panel seriously derelict probate attorneys; and other

issues.

The Council supports the findings and recommendations of the

Probate Review Committee as far as they go, but strongly believes

that further attention is required to address and remedy the issues

brought to public light by the articles.

Now to issues of general court administration.

With regard to general court administration, similar to our analysis of the family court and Probate Division, there is some good

news to report since our last appearance before this committee in

June 2002. The Council’s court observation studies of the Civil and

Criminal Divisions of the superior court completed in 2001 and

2002 remain true today with respect to the high caliber of judges

and their success in providing the community with a high quality

of justice. We also want to recognize the court for having written

and published a strategic plan and for their followup in the form

of four upcoming town hall meetings that will give residents in all

wards of the city an opportunity to share their views about the

D.C. Superior Court and the court of appeals and to talk with court

leaders about important issues facing residents throughout the District. Such outreach is an important step.

We also applaud the court’s establishment of a pilot community

court for police Districts 6 and 7 and can report that, after only a

2-year period, the pilot is functioning fairly well.

The establishment of a community court was one of the 27 recommendations made in the Council’s April 2001 report, ‘‘A Roadmap to a Better D.C. Criminal Justice System.’’ CCE’s December

2003, report, ‘‘Two Years Down the Road,’’ is the result of a 10-

month study conducted last year with generous funding from Congress. The study charted the progress of efforts made to increase

the efficiency of the D.C. criminal justice system based on the 27

recommendations of our April 2001, roadmap report. The new report recognizes stakeholder agencies, the D.C. criminal justice system is indeed headed down the positive reform path. But much

work remains to be done, including expanding the court’s work in

applying revised scheduling practices to the felony area, which consumes most of the police overtime relating to prosecutor and court

appearances.

100

Other issues with which CCE is concerned include: one, the continuing delay in production of court transcripts; and two, the lack

of transparency of court information in general and budgetary information specifically from a public institution. We believe such information should be readily available to everyone and should be

posted on the court’s Web site, as should the court’s annual reports.

We commend this committee for your policy and fiscal leadership

in overseeing the court’s in the District of Columbia and thank you

for holding this oversight hearing which we believe should be done

on an annual basis. We appreciate the courts providing us with a

copy of its budget submission to Congress, and we commend the

courts for the high quality of that budget package. We also thank

the D.C. courts for the plans they have laid out and the manner

in which they have received our various recommendations. We continue to look forward to working with the D.C. courts and with this

committee.

I am happy to answer your questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Dahlman, thank you for being with

us.

Ms. DAHLMAN. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Delegate

Norton. My name is Rhonda Dahlman. I am an attorney at Legal

Counsel for the Elderly in the District of Columbia, an affiliated organization of the AARP. Through funding from the Older Americans Act, we provide free legal representation to older residents of

the District. On behalf of AARP, LCE and the vulnerable clients for

whom I advocate, thank you for inviting us to discuss D.C. guardianship law and practice.

Guardianship must be imposed only with the full protection of

the individual’s due process rights. It is the court’s responsibility

not only to determine whether and how much guardianship is warranted but also to appoint qualified individuals to serve and to

monitor the guardian to ensure that the purpose of the guardianship is being fulfilled. In short, the ward must be better off, not

worse off because of the court’s action.

We identify three critical areas of improvement needed within

our current protective services in the court system.

First, we need qualified guardians. When there’s no available or

appropriate family member to serve, the court generally appoints

members of the bar. In my tenure as legal counsel, I have had experience with conscientious and proactive—a word that I know you

like, Delegate Norton—very proactive guardians. Unfortunately, I

have also had too many experiences with guardians who are not attentive to their responsibilities and ill-equipped to make even basic

decisions on behalf of their wards.

Although recently the court implemented a mandatory training

for guardians and conservators in the area of probate law, additional topics should be included in the curriculum. I have experienced attorney guardians who have no knowledge in other areas of

law in which their wards may be involved.

For example, I petitioned the court for a guardianship for an elderly tenant who had been committed to a mental health facility

and faced eviction due to nonpayment of rent. While there was

agreement that the ward would not be able to return to the community, there was no one to remove her personal belongings and

store those belongings. Unfortunately—though I got an emergency

guardian appointed. Unfortunately, the court-appointed guardian

took 3 months to do anything for his ward; and once I found out

nothing had been done, he informed me that he did not know what

to do in this situation. The fact that the ward’s personal belongings

were not thrown out on the street was due to her housing provider

who had contacted me, not her guardian.

One simple improvement would be for the court to note on its

guardian conservator list those attorneys who are trained and experienced in other areas of the law that relate to the needs of the

ward.

Another improvement would be to require that all court-appointed guardians and conservators attend at least two trainings a

year offered by the D.C. Bar in areas of tenant law, public benefits,

and consumer matters. You would be surprised at how many

guardians don’t understand that their wards need to recertify for

Medicaid or to get on Medicaid and they don’t know that process.

109

We also recommend that the court utilize training by qualified

community social workers so that guardians are aware of the many

social services in the District available to their wards.

I can tell you that neither of these recommendations would create any additional financial burden to the court.

In addition to receiving more comprehensive training, we recommend that any nonfamily guardians be certified through a written examination. Certification is one way to ensure the courts and

the community that guardians have a basic understanding of their

fiduciary duties and grounding in local law and practice.

We also recommend a public guardian program be instituted,

even if it is somewhat of a pilot project. The program would provide

guardianship services as a last resort when guardianship is appropriate but there’s no qualified relative to serve. A good public

guardian program would be an effective advocate for quality care

in long-term care facilities which I will tell you is an area where

we often find an extensive amount of neglected wards who do not

have involved families.

Last, we need better monitoring of existing cases. The court appointment of a qualified guardian or conservator is merely a first

step. The court has ongoing responsibility to ensure that guardians

promote the welfare of those in their care. Most often, guardianship

petitions are filed because there is looming health or safety risk

faced by the subject. If the court, like in other areas of the courthouse, set status hearings in appropriate cases subsequent to the

appointment of the guardian, it would inherently provide the court

with direct oversight.

D.C., like all States, requires guardians and conservators to account to the court on a regular basis. Beyond that requirement and

compared to other States, the D.C. code provides little guidance as

to how the courts are to carry out its monitoring responsibilities.

Chief Judge King is to be commended for his recent efforts to tighten the process, but there is still much room for improvement. Notices of appointments are sometimes taking weeks to get to the

newly appointed conservator and guardians. If the court had a separate monitoring team that reviewed cases regularly, there would

be much less room for court administrative errors and guardian neglect of this most vulnerable population.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the way older

D.C. residents who need protection of the court find justice they deserve and to which they are entitled, and I will be glad to answer

questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dahlman follows:]

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Ward.

Mr. WARD. Good morning. I have been practicing law in the District of Columbia since 1967, principally in the fields of trust and

estates. I have served on the Superior Court Advisory Committee

on Probate and Fiduciary Rules since 1975. During 1987 and 1988,

I served as consultant register of wills for 9 months. My co-authored book, ‘‘Wills, Trusts and Estates,’’ is about to published in

its fourth edition.

The Office of the Register of Wills dates back to February 27,

1801; and the register of wills was a Presidential appointee until

1946. The register of wills continues as a statutory office under

Title 11 of the D.C. code and is appointed by the superior court.

Under the provisions of the Home Rule Act, the City Council may

not enact any act, resolution or rule with respect to any provision

of Title 11. Several salutary changes to the statutory operations of

the register of wills, accordingly, may only be made by the Congress.

I offer three proposed changes that Congress ought to make to

Title 11.

One, in Maryland since 1970 a register of wills may sign an

order admitting a will to probate and appoint a personal representative. When the City Council adopted the Probate Reform Act of

1980, it concluded that it could not give this power to the register

of wills stating: that earlier proposals to increase the powers and

responsibilities of the register of wills with respect to uncontested

estate administration issues would involve amending Title 11 of

the D.C. code and thus be beyond the jurisdiction of this council.

There are 2,500 new decedents’ estates opened each year in the

District of Columbia. If the judges had 2,500 fewer orders to sign,

they would have more time to devote to matters more suited to

their skills and the register would spend less time writing up advisory slips for the judges. Please give the register of wills the authority to admit wills to probate and appoint personal representatives in testate and intestate cases.

Two, guardians appointed in an intervention proceeding are

obliged to file guardianship reports every 6 months on a court-developed form. It was determined by the register of wills and the

Advisory Committee on Probate and Fiduciary Rules when the

rules to implement the intervention act were being written that the

Office of the Register of Wills would not ‘‘audit’’ these reports as

the Office did not have anyone on the staff who really had social

worker type competence to audit the reports. The role of the Office

would simply be to monitor the filing of the reports but not their

content.

While there is a director of social services in the superior court,

this director has no jurisdiction over any adult under supervision.

While the officer of the District of Columbia courts may appoint

such personnel as may be needed by the register of wills, rather

than put the register of wills in the middle of what could be arguably be an unwanted expansion of the powers of the Office without

a statutory predicate, the Congress should amend the provisions of

Title 11 to create the position of auditor of social services to be filed

by a trained social worker who could both develop a new, more

meaningful guardianship report and monitor the contents filed of

117

guardianship reports to ensure that the wards are receiving minimally adequate care.

Three. Conservators in intervention proceedings are given statutory power to invest their ward’s assets as would a trustee. The

court rules provide a prudent investor standard for fiduciary investment by fiduciaries reporting to the court, but, other than advising fiduciaries that bank balances must be kept within Federal

insurance limits as required by the Intervention Act, the auditors

rarely question investments because they are not trained to recognize a bad investment from a good one.

If the register of wills had an investment officer who was trained

in investments, the register of wills could much better monitor the

conservator’s investments of a ward’s assets. Again, not to put the

register of wills in the middle, the Congress should amend Title 11

to create the position, and definition of requirements for, an investment officer in the Office of the Register of Wills.

Three other matters not requiring a solution by an act of Congress. Joint control. When a fiduciary is required to post bond, the

bonding companies require the fiduciary to file an application for

a bond. If the fiduciary cannot qualify for the bond, the fiduciary

cannot be appointed. A practice developed where the bonding companies agreed to write the bond if the bank would agree not to

honor checks unless cosigned by the fiduciary’s attorney acting on

behalf of a surety, a practice which has received statutory recognition.

The court in the recent past decided not to permit this practice

to continue. The effect is to force fiduciaries to make their attorney

a cofiduciary, thereby setting a possible conflict of interest between

the attorney’s duty to the client and the attorney’s duty as a fiduciary to the ward or the estate. The committee should admonish

the Probate Division to reinstate joint control.

Two. When the will is a safe deposit box solely titled in the name

of the decedent, the practice used to be for the register of wills to

send one of the appraisers to the bank. The safe deposit box would

be opened, and only the will removed and taken to the court for

filing. The court rules provide a fee for this, which is $25.

In 1998, the register of wills discontinued this practice and substituted the filing for an appointment of the special administrator,

a much more cumbersome procedure and unnecessary. The rationale was that there was no statutory basis for the practice in that

banks were unfamiliar with it. This committee should admonish

the register of wills to reinstate the practice of sending a representative from the office to attend safe deposit box openings to search

for a will.

Three, and last. Appointing counsel for the subject as the conservator for the ward deprives the subject of a zealous representation when counsel sees a lucrative opportunity to become the conservator of a wealthy ward. Counsel appointed for the subject is

supposed to provide zealous representation. Counsel also is supposed to advocate the least restrictive intervention possible. But if

counsel knows there is a good chance counsel will be appointed conservator, why should we believe counsel will advocate not appointing a plenary conservator? The committee should admonish the

118

Probate Division not to appoint counsel for the subject as the conservator for the ward.

Thank you for listening.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. That was fast reading, but we got it in under the time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]

119

120

121

122

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Curtin, thank you.

Mr. CURTIN. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton and other

committee members, I very much appreciate the committee’s offer

to testify before you today.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter dated April 20th, the committee solicited my views on the appointment, responsibilities and accountability of the register of wills and her staff as well as the relationship of the register of will’s office with practitioners, and presumably the public, as well as the adequacy of the current reporting

requirements for conservators and the enforcement of these requirements. You have also asked that I comment on the use of new

technologies to streamline guardianship and conservatorship administration. I am not a tech geek, if you will, Mr. Chairman, so

I will leave the comment on new technologies to more learned folks

than myself.

Having practiced almost exclusively in the Probate Division since

its inception in 1972, and 3 years before that in the U.S. District

Court, the court that formerly had jurisdiction over trust and estate matters here in the District, as well as having been employed

as the deputy register of wills in that office from 1966 to 1969, I

appear before you with certain ingrained prejudices and/or biases

concerning just about every facet of the Probate Division’s work.

I was fortunate to serve as the reporter for the initial Advisory

Rules Committee formed in 1971 to draft rules governing the administration of estates, guardianships of minors, and

guardianships and conservatorships of incapacitated adults. It is

my honor to have served on that committee with members of the

bench and bar for more than 23 years. The role of that committee

and all of its successors was to draft those rules of procedure in the

administration of estates, guardianships and conservatorships in

accordance with the statutory framework first promulgated by the

U.S. Congress and, since 1972, the District of Columbia City Council.

So that the committee can get a full flavor of this rulemaking

process and how it works, let me mention that the members of the

Advisory Committee are selected by the chief judge of the superior

court, and consistently have included members of the bar with particular expertise and experience in matters that were handled or

brought before the Probate Division.

In addition, it has been a consistent practice that a number of

superior court judges, including those judges assigned to the Probate Division sit on the Advisory Rules Committee. The work of

that committee since its inception has been to periodically meet to

discuss and propose modifications for existing rules as well as new

rules that may be deemed appropriate to more efficiently implement statutory schemes governing the works of the Probate Division. Those rules are thereafter reviewed by the Rules Committee

of the Board of Judges of the superior court, and then, if deemed

appropriate by that committee, submitted to the full Board of

Judges of the superior court for approval. They are thereafter put

out for public comment, and after a period of time promulgated as

rules of the court. I think we can all agree that process is very open

and transparent.

123

Having provided you that thumbnail sketch of the rulemaking

process in the court, now let me tie that process directly into your

committee’s focus this morning. The register of wills as well as key

deputies and other senior staff of that office have either been members of the Advisory Committee or acted as staff available to the

Advisory Committee in drafting the proposed rules.

Can the rulemaking process governing the Probate Division be

improved? Although as indicated above there is significant openness and transparency to the process, one suggestion in that record

would be to have the court consider having Advisory Committee

members expanded to include one or more health care professionals

or social workers who could lend a nonlegal perspective to the discussion and debate, at least in deliberating over the drafting of

rules affecting guardianships and conservatorships of incapacitated

adults.

The appointment, responsibilities and accountability of the register of wills and her staff. As I am sure you have heard from the

court personnel here this morning, and as Mr. Ward just alluded,

the register of wills is, in fact, appointed by a Board of Judges of

the superior court pursuant to Chapter 21 of Title 11 of the D.C.

code.

In addition to the duties, powers and responsibilities set forth in

Chapter 21 of Title 11, a specific Probate Division court rule authorizes and, in fact, instructs the register of wills to review all ex

parte matters and to make recommendations to a Probate Division

judge as to whether or not a proposed order should be signed as

submitted. This review process entails the register or one of her

deputies reviewing the request for ex parte relief and providing a

written recommendation to the court for that purpose. The written

recommendations become part of the court file.

While not a statutorily defined duty, the register of wills, by virtue of existing court rules, is obligated to advise the court of any

irregularity perceived in connection with the administration of decedents’ estates, guardianships of minors, or conservatorships and

guardianships of incapacitated adults. These irregularities can run

the gamut of failing to file statutorily mandated or rule-mandated

inventories or accounts and/or failure to comply with audit requests

made by the staff of the register of wills. The current register of

wills, the Honorable Constance Starks, has held that position since

1988. Since that time there have been no less than four significant,

far-reaching and sweeping changes in the guardianship/conservatorship statute or the administration of decedent estates, and

most recently a version of the Uniform Trust Act has been adopted

by the District of Columbia.

All of these statutory changes have required substantial revisions of the rules and procedures as well as undertakings that govern and guide practitioners and the general public in this area of

the law. The amount of the work done by the register of wills and

her staff, as well as the organized bar and bench, in adopting rules

and procedures consistent with these numerous changes has been

remarkable. I think it is important to note that all of these changes

were implemented without an ostensible hitch or disruption in the

administration of the decedents’ estates or conservatorships or

guardianships.

124

I recognize that the purpose of this hearing or for my testimony

is not to articulate the nuances or the good points or bad points of

these numerous statutes. I mention them only so that the committee can get an understanding of how administratively the Office of

the Register of Wills positively coped or dealt with the changes in

procedure and administration due to the changes in the statutes.

I hasten to add that approximately in that same period of time, the

staff at the register of wills office has been reduced from 82 to less

than 50.

I think everyone here at this hearing this morning will agree

that the articles that appeared in the Washington Post in June

2003 were not the best days for the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia. Washington Post reporters did an extensive study of

estate, guardianship and conservatorship proceedings that had

been instituted within the Probate Division in the last 8 to 10

years prior to that article being published.

I am morally certain that the survey of available cases during

that time exceeded 20,000. In the 2 days of the Post article, they

highlighted no less than 10 cases of egregious conduct, where unchecked behavior, where misfeasance or nonfeasance were not challenged, and in one case outright theft by a personal representative

of the decedent’s estate in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In partial response to a question you tendered, Congresswoman

Norton, I hasten to add that as to that just mentioned example of

theft by a personal representative, that individual was not a lawyer, and there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that either the register of wills office or the court could have done to prevent that

theft. The estate was operating under a statutorily mandated, unsupervised administration, and until a complaint was filed by an

interested person, there was no way that the theft could have been

either detected nor prevented.

Nonetheless, I believe the stories were a wake-up call. It was a

wake-up call for the register of wills office, it was a wake-up call

for the court, and it was a wake-up call for the bar. The chief

judge, in consultation with the presiding judge of the Probate Division, immediately took steps to deal with the perceived pattern of

conduct that allowed the irregularities and abuses cited in those

articles to be visited upon the citizens of D.C. The chief judge’s administrative order forthrightly spoke to the practicing bar in unequivocal terms that we must do better. We have rules to be observed, we have deadlines to be met, and failure to do so in the future will, in fact, have consequences.

In the weeks and months since the Washington Post article and

the famous administrative order issued by the chief judge immediately following those articles, there have been rumors and

grumblings by the organized bar about the draconian nature of

Chief Judge King’s order and the register of wills’ implementation

of that order.

Chief Judge King properly perceived the problem within the Probate Division and entered an order that had to be implemented. I

respectfully suggest to the committee, to the extent that there has

been an interest in this dynamic, that the grumblings had more to

do with shooting the messenger, the implementer, than anything

substantive.

125

In the passage of time, the administrative order has been amended on two different occasions. While I am not fully certain, I believe

these amendments have addressed the articulated and, maybe in

some instances, legitimate concerns of the members of bar without

diluting the message that comes loud and clear from Judge King’s

order: Filings will be made timely, irregularities will be dealt with

directly, and those fiduciaries abusing their responsibilities will be

dealt with appropriately.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I commend your committee and its

members for its desire to make sure that the superior court and

the various divisions continue to provide outstanding service in the

administration of justice to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

In that role I urge you to continue to encourage and, yes, even prod

the Congress and the executive branch of the District of Colombia

government to provide resources necessary to continue this work

and to enhance the services to be afforded to the citizens of the District.

I thank you for your time. I will take any questions that you may

want to present.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtin follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just start where you left off, Mr.

Curtin, and for you, Mr. Ward. Looking back at the Post article,

it notes that in half of the 783 long-term guardianships initiated

between 1995 and 2000, caretakers filed no reports for 18 months

or more, missing their deadlines by at least a year. According to

the Post review of records, that is in half of the cases. In 170 of

those cases, no reports were filed within 3 years, and 127 or about

one-sixth of the cases the guardians never reported back after they

were appointed. That is the fault certainly of the guardians, but

also of the court in terms of its oversight.

Now, my question is this to both of you: Do you think the court

is adequately exercising its power to sanction lawyers and fiduciaries in appropriate cases?

Mr. CURTIN. Your Honor, I do think—Mr. Chairman, I do

think——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I am not an honorable. That is apparent.

Mr. CURTIN. I heard you wanted to a judge. You told us you

wanted to be a judge.

But, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the court does have adequate

ability to sanction a lawyer now. I think the—again, I don’t know—

I didn’t study each case that they looked at, but I would dare say

that a number of those cases where people didn’t report properly

or timely to the court, they were late folks, and the court really has

no sanction except to remove that fiduciary as a fiduciary. They

can’t put them in jail. They are not going to hold them in contempt.

What they will do is eventually remove that PR——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Couldn’t they order them to report back

by a certain time; if they don’t, then you are in contempt?

Mr. CURTIN. Yes, they could. And, in fact, that has happened

where they have these summary hearings when they bring them in

and they say—they give them an excuse, and then they will tell

them to come back. But to my knowledge, there has only been one

case where a fiduciary was held in contempt. I have to say to you

that the court of appeals reversed that trial court’s decision.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I guess the problem is that once this stuff

gets out of hand, the word gets out, and then nobody obeys it. So

it starts at the top.

Mr. CURTIN. I think that was the problem that hopefully Judge

King’s administrative order is going to address. When it involves

a lawyer, I can assure you that those notices of—that you are in

default, you are in irregularity, are going to be met with dispatch,

because the sanction now of referral to bar counsel almost as an

automatic is a heavy hammer that works.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Ward, do you have any comments?

Mr. WARD. I would like to suggest to you, however, that in those

cases, if the reports had been timely filed, the ward would still

have suffered, because nobody reads the reports. And there is nobody who is competent to read the report. And the reports were

written by the Rules Committee, by lawyers who don’t know too

much about social work. So the questions that are asked on the reports aren’t necessarily the cleverest questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But let me ask you this. The reports are

also sent to interested persons, not just the court. Doesn’t that

sometimes generate——

135

Mr. WARD. Well, if there are interested persons, but sometimes

there aren’t.

Mr. CURTIN. The answer is yes, they are sent to interested persons, but—they are required to be sent to interested persons. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If they are sent anywhere, they are filed.

Ms. DAHLMAN. If I might add?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sure.

Ms. DAHLMAN. I file these petitions on a regular basis. I do not

get these reports. I get these reports if the ward has a lot of money.

I have probably received maybe one or two reports from guardians

that have filed their reports in the past 5 years.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. How many should you have received?

Ms. DAHLMAN. Pardon?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. How many do you think you should have

received?

Ms. DAHLMAN. I think I should have received all of them.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Which is how many?

Ms. DAHLMAN. I probably file about 30 a year.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Mr. Ward, do you think the court is

exercising its powers to sanction lawyers and fiduciaries in appropriate cases?

Mr. WARD. I think it is doing it inappropriately. There have been

several references to counsel, bar counsel, but have been dismissed

by bar counsel because the decisions were flat wrong and against

the rules, and they are up in the court of appeals now. The court

has the ability to do it, but they use it sometimes with a heavy

hand.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me move to Ms. Ashby. What action

has the family court implemented to improve working relationships

between the CFSA, social workers and the family court judges?

Ms. ASHBY. Well, as both Judge King and Judge Satterfield reported, at the highest levels of both organizations there are meetings, both on day-to-day operations and on longer-term projects and

goals.

The difficulty that we stated in our statement, and also in our

earlier report, was that when you start talking to the social workers and some of the judges and magistrate judges themselves, in

the practical day to day to day, how do we work together in resolving a particular case, there are problems. From a social worker’s

point of view, the problems stem from the judges not respecting

their ability to make decisions about well-being, safety of children.

Sometimes there are critical issues at hand. Judges sometimes

make rulings that the social workers don’t think it appropriate.

On the other side, from a judge’s perspective, they get frustrated

because it takes a long time to get things done. Sometimes services

aren’t provided if there is not a court order. So a court order is

issued.

There are a lot of the day-to-day frustrations and inefficiencies

that need to be worked out, but certainly at the top level, there are

lots of opportunities for meetings and attending training together

and conversation and communication.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, the family court has improved the

percent of cases that comply with that ASFA permanency hearing

136

requirement. What do you think is needed to further improve their

ability to fully meet this requirement?

Ms. ASHBY. Well, maybe this is a good opportunity for me to address the discrepancy in numbers. There are probably a number of

factors that account for the difference in the percentages that we

reported and those that the court are reporting.

First of all, the definition of what the requisite period is at issue,

I believe. On page 3 of our testimony statement, we list the ASFA

requirement with respect to permanency, and we say that a permanency hearing must be held within 12 months of a child’s entry

into foster care. Entry into foster care is defined based on the earliest of two dates. One is the date of the first judicial finding, and

the other is the date that is 60 days after the child has been removed from his or her home, if removal occurs.

It appears that the court is simply taking the second part of that

definition, and that is where the 425 days comes from, a year, 12

months, plus 60 days, based on information that we have regarding

when the first adjudication hearing occurs, and that time is decreasing—it has increased more than 80 percent in the last 2 or 3

years. It would seem that there certainly must be many cases

where the earlier date is the date of that first judicial finding, and

that seems to be ignored.

Also, the dates—actually the information we used came from the

Council for Court Excellence. And we selected those numbers as opposed to the court’s, because those numbers were based on a case

file review. And during that case file review, one of the things that

became evident was that sometimes permanency hearings are held,

but all of the requirements of those hearings are not met.

A permanency hearing is supposed to result in two things: A goal

for the permanent placement of the child, which can be reunification, adoption, something else; and a date by which this is to occur.

Quite often there is the goal but no date by which it is to occur.

So it is questionable about whether these types of proceedings actually constitute permanency hearings. There are slight timing differences, and that might account for some of the difference, but it

will not account for the total difference in our numbers.

As was said, the Council for Court Excellence is going to come

out with new numbers very soon, and we look forward to seeing

how they compute those numbers and what they are.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Hall, what measures would you recommend for the Probate

Division to implement to ensure competency on the part of courtappointed guardians and conservators?

Mr. HALL. The appointment of counsel has played a big role so

far since the publication of those articles in the Post in making

sure that competent counsel are appointed. What we have pointed

out is making certain that you cap the numbers of guardianship or

conservatorship cases that are assigned to an attorney over a period of time.

I think you mentioned during the course of the hearing today

that some counsel have had a number of cases far exceeding their

capabilities in dealing with them, and capping those numbers will

be——

137

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So it is a burden issue as much as a competency issue?

Mr. HALL. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You think that would probably be the

most straightforward——

Mr. HALL. I think the judge mentioned in the last panel that

they are going through these alphabetical listings of assigning, but

there will be some cases with some complexities that some lawyers

with backgrounds in these particular areas will be more capable of

handling.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Is thought given, do you think, as those

appointments are made in terms of matching it up with attorneys

of competence?

Mr. HALL. Well, obviously they have avoided that now, answer

to these criticisms, because they are going through in alphabetical

order. That, of course, means there are going to be various levels

of competency for everyone if you use a purely alphabetical system.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Right.

Mr. HALL. In most cases if you stay with a category of lawyers

that are expert in a certain area, of course you are going to get the

kind of problems that we had before. How you correct that is going

to be interesting.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me ask Ms. Dahlman. I think she has

noted that there are 700 voluntary National Guardianship Foundation-certified guardians, but none practice in the District.

Ms. DAHLMAN. Yes. There are none that are certified in the District. That is correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Why do you think that is? What good does

it do you, right?

Ms. DAHLMAN. Because it is not required.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Not required. Doesn’t do you any good.

You don’t get any bang for it, right?

Ms. DAHLMAN. No extra kudos for that. It is not required, and

people aren’t going to do it. If it is not required, you are not going

to do it. I will give the court credit in these cases. They don’t always stay by that list. We will look.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If they get a complex case, they are going

to look for an attorney that can handle it.

Ms. DAHLMAN. They will look for that attorney. But these are attorneys, they are not social workers, so we look for the attorney

that can deal with the mental health issues. You know, but it is

difficult, because these are attorneys. They are not social workers.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We don’t know every attorney. You have

a long list.

Ms. DAHLMAN. Exactly.

Bear in mind that we should start public guardian programs, because then we would have people that would be trained specifically

in those areas of these very difficult cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I could go on all day with questions. You

have been a great panel. I appreciate it. I am going to yield to Ms.

Norton for some questions.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a few questions.

138

I am confused about this notion of guardians who are members

of family, and guardians who are lawyers, and I would like the

opinion of each of you about this. I don’t know if having a guardian

who is a member of the family or friend is, for example, less expensive than having a lawyer. That would be something I would be interested in. But my main interest is whether one necessarily gets

better service from a nonlawyer.

You know, we start with the notion that if there is an available

family member, and many of these cases necessarily involve knowing something not only about the particular issue before you, but

knowing something about how other areas of the law may, in fact,

be affected.

A lawyer is subject to the total control of the court. He can lose

his license. He can be sanctioned in ways that affect him professionally. I am not convinced that an amateur, simply because the

person is close, is the best guardian, but I don’t know.

And I don’t know whether there should be a presumption, one

way or the other, nor am I convinced that simply to send somebody

to a training session makes him somehow a fully qualified guardian of the kind of lawyer he is. The lawyer can’t tell me, hey, look,

I know about tax, therefore I took this matter for that reason; but

I don’t have any understanding of mental health law, so please

don’t hold me accountable. Where it seems to me that to require,

in this complicated system, a lay person to have that kind of understanding may be in its own way risky.

I would like to hear your opinion as to whether or not this simply

ought to be judged not whether or not you are a friend who looks

like you are intelligent, or you are a lawyer who looks like you

know the area, but whether or not this simply ought to be done on

a highly individualized basis with no presumption one way or the

other.

Mr. CURTIN. Congresswoman Norton, I would like to respond by

saying that, first of all, the current statutory framework provides

that if the individual who now is incapacitated has, in fact, designated, as an example, in a power of attorney that he would want

or she would want——

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is out of the court’s hands then.

Let’s talk about where the court has to decide whether it is a

person who is a family friend; you know, there is no indication in

a will, there is no indication by a document, and somebody has to

decide whether it is going to be a friend who has been close over

the years, or whether it is going to be a relative, or whether it is

going to be a lawyer.

Mr. CURTIN. It is not an uncommon thing in the superior court

for the judge to designate a family friend or a family member to

be guardian of the person and then appoint a lawyer to be guardian of the property, having a different role. The guardian of property would be managing the money. The guardian of the person

would, in fact, make the personal health decisions for that individual.

And the judges I have seen have struggled with that issue and

dealt with it in that way, so that there is some reasonable assurance that the money would be handled properly, but the medical

decisions and the personal decisions for the incapacitated ward

139

would be made by a family member or close personal friend. And

that is the best of both worlds.

Ms. NORTON. So you think that might be the best combination?

Mr. CURTIN. Yes, I do.

Ms. NORTON. Do the rest of you agree?

Mr. WARD. We should also consider the way this gets to the

court. The Intervention Act considered an adversarial proceeding

where we have the zealous advocate representing the subject who

is supposed to respond to the petition and represent the interests

of the putative ward. If this is done properly, if there is a problem

about the person who is seeking to become the guardian, that is

usually ferreted out.

Typically we have a situation in this area where we have multiple siblings, only one or two of whom are here, and the others are

in California, so one of them gets the fiduciary appointment. Then

the mother dies, and the one from California comes back and says,

where is my inheritance? So in the process of getting these people

appointed, and if it is done properly, the court will take a neutral

person if the family is feuding, but if it is not, and the counsel for

the subject doesn’t see the problem, then doing it as Mr. Curtin

suggested is a very logical way to do it.

Mr. HALL. You know, from a perception point of view, I have to

point out that the Washington Post observed that the determination that the court takes to appoint a guardian or a conservator

takes around 10 minutes. To the public—that may seem an inadequate amount of time for a court to make an important determination as to the nature of a person’s life. But when it comes to

the question of whether the person appointed should be counsel or

family member, I have seen it work, in my experience, in both

ways, if the person is able and gives attention to the issue. And it

could very well be a family member who has the background and

the education to understand what has to be done, and they do it

in a conscientious manner.

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Hall. This notion about the

10 minutes in the Washington Post the court takes strong exception to, because it indicated to our staff that there may be such

cases, but that nobody can know how much each takes.

But that many hearings require less time. I don’t know enough

about this area of the law to know whether or not there are some

things that can be disposed of that easily or not. Do any of you

have any feel on that?

Mr. CURTIN. Your Honor, I would say that I am sure the Washington Post reporters that wrote that sat in the courtroom and saw

one hearing take 10 minutes. I have been in that courtroom on numerous and diverse occasions where a conservatorship hearing or

guardianship hearing would take three-quarters of a day. It would

take parts of 2 days. But I have no doubt that they did witness one

or two or maybe a dozen hearings where it took 10 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. It could be the lawyer who is a relative, for example, you know. So I don’t assign anything to anecdotal evidence. I

am far too statistical.

Ms. DAHLMAN. I can tell you that it is not uncommon. It is not

uncommon. Many of my hearings are very short.

140

Ms. NORTON. Well, you think that the cursory—the time of the

hearing is of no concern to me. I would have to know all of the

background to know whether that was true.

Ms. DAHLMAN. If you have an examiner who has a visitor, you

don’t—the court-appointed counsel, the guardian ad litem, there is

a clear case of incapacity.

As Mr. Curtin said, on the other hand, especially if you are dealing—that is when you are dealing with dementia, Alzheimer’s and

situations like that. When you are dealing with mental illness, it

takes on another——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let my ask this. I guess my question, the

followup to that is have you watched courtroom proceedings where

it has taken 10 minutes and it probably should have taken a lot

longer? That is the point.

Mr. WARD. Well, these articles were written before the court of

appeals decided the Orshanky case in which the court of appeals

admonished the superior court that if the statute says the subject

is supposed to be present at the hearing, and unless there is a good

reason not to—routinely the counsels waived the presence of the

subjects at the hearing. There were a lot of procedural steps that—

where the court was taking shortcuts where the court of appeals

said you shouldn’t do that. So I think that the hearings now would

take a little bit longer than at the time those articles were written.

Ms. NORTON. It is an important point to make.

Mr. Chairman, I have only one more question, and that is: I was

concerned, Ms. Ashby, part of your report, page 14, procedural impediments to adoption. This committee has put considerable interest on priority on adoption, the need to complete administrative requirements associated with placing children with adopted families

in locations other than the District. That is something we heard

about CSFA some time ago, insufficient guardian or adoption subsidies. Is this a District government problem——

Ms. ASHBY. Well, it is——

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Or a CSFA problem?

Ms. ASHBY. It is a national problem, certainly not unique.

Ms. NORTON. But you said administrative requirements. I am

concerned about administrative——

Ms. ASHBY. The difficulties with interjurisdictional agreements

involving——

Ms. NORTON. But then there was a new agreement.

Ms. ASHBY. There was an agreement with Maryland. I don’t

know the specifics of it, but, as I understand, there was some difficulty with that. I also understand that the effort—current effort

is to place children within the District of Columbia as opposed to

Maryland or Virginia, and I again don’t know what is behind that.

We are currently doing work under the appropriation—the 2004

D.C. Appropriation Act, a mandated study, looking at CFSA, and

part of what we are doing is looking at its recruitment and retention of adoptive and foster care homes. So we are in the process of

getting more data on that.

The procedural difficulties have to do with the difficulties with

interjurisdictional agreements, and at the essence of that are the

home studies that are required, and which jurisdictions is the home

141

study done in, who does it? Is the home study done by one jurisdiction accepted by another, and so forth? These are national issues.

I forgot the second part of it.

Ms. NORTON. You’ve answered my question, if you are doing a

study of the interjurisdictional agreements. And I would hope that

study will include why—I don’t care where these children are

placed, frankly. I think they have to be placed in the best home.

I think today you are probably less likely to find that best home

in the District of Columbia. We have lost so many people. We have

a disproportionate number of very poor people. So I would be interested in any preference as to where the child is placed as opposed

to the best placement for the child.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, that is my last question.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You have been a very patient panel. You

have been a very good panel. We very much appreciate your testimony. Your entire testimony is part of the record.

Anything anybody want to add after all of this that maybe you

didn’t get in?

Ms. ASHBY. I failed to actually answer one of your questions. You

asked what else the family court could do in terms of increasing

permanency. I will just briefly cite several things that we did cover

in our statement.

One has to do, of course, with the availability of substance abuse

treatment—and that has been talked about—and other services

that families need in order to bring about reunification. That is not

something that the court can do per se, but it is something that

needs to be done in order to allow for faster permanency determinations.

Also, with respect to the court, we have been told by judges that

additional support staff are needed to help with the processing of

cases and entering information into the computer system and so

forth. The court is looking into its human capital needs and has not

made a determination whether it is true or not at this point.

The computer system that is supposed to allow the court to communicate with other agencies within the District that influence the

safety and well-being of children, it is an ongoing effort. There has

been progress, particularly between the court and CFSA, and the

court and the Corporation Counsel, but still there are other agencies that need to be brought on board.

And I guess finally, this again is more CFSA than it is the court,

but there seems to be a shortage of social workers, and there is

high turnover among social workers, which makes it difficult if a

social worker leaves and someone else takes over the case, they

don’t necessarily know all that has happened with that case.

We have reported in the past problems with the computer system

within CFSA and how not all information is recorded and so forth.

So it is a number of things that need to be dealt with. Some the

court can control, some it can’t. But the court, CFSA, and other organizations within the District working together should be able to

improve things.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Waxman has asked that a written statement by admitted into the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, so ordered.

142

Again, thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your

testimony. The committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

143

144

145

Æ