vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Domestic Violence - domestic_violence
This guide can be used by judges, court staff, and providers working with litigants who need to ask for, or respond to, a domestic violence restraining order.

Podcasts

Professional Supervised Visitation: A Safety Tool for Judges and Families
Listen - 21:54  (Transcript)
This episode highlights the important role judges and providers play in keeping families safe when domestic violence is alleged or found. 
You will hear from:

Shelly La Botte, Senior Analyst at the Judicial Council of California
Judge Brooke Blecher, Superior Court of Santa Clara
And a recap from people from episode 1 (Mary, Crystal, and Judge Victor Hwang)

 
A Journey to Healing: How One Tribe Incorporates a Traditional Approach to Address Domestic Violence
Listen · 37:15    (Transcript)
Before you listen: Please be aware that this episode includes first-person accounts of domestic violence. The people sharing them agreed to do so in hopes that others might benefit from what they’ve learned.
Native American women — and men — are;more likely than white counterparts to experience intimate partner violence. That violence is often grounded in trauma that impacts whole communities. For indigenous people, it can be traced back to colonization as well as to racism and oppression that persists today. In this episode, you’ll hear members of California’s Yurok Tribe talk about the impact of domestic violence, and how the tribal court worked to put in place a culturally-relevant, and more effective, path to healing.
In this episode, you will hear from:

“Mark” and “Lydia” who share their personal experiences
The Honorable Abbi Abinanti, Elder and Chief Judge of the Yurok Tribe
Lori Nesbitt, Facilitator of the Yurok Batterers Intervention Program/Yurok Tribal Court Opioid Program Manager
Lee Romney, producer of this episode, as narrator

 
An Invisible Epidemic: A Survivor’s Story and What Courts Should Know About Traumatic Brain Injury
Listen · 34:08   (Transcript)
 
This podcast shines light on a condition that Dr. Eve Valera describes as an epidemic that our society does not know enough about. The condition is traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, in women who have experienced intimate partner violence.
Collaborative Justice Courts - collaborative_justice
Research and Publications

Print

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Collaborative justice courts-also known as problem-solving courts- combine judicial supervision with rehabilitation services that are rigorously monitored and focused on recovery to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes.

Examples of collaborative justice courts are community courts, drug courts, DUI courts, homeless courts, mental health courts, reentry courts, veterans courts, and courts where the defendant may be a minor or where the child's welfare is at issue. These include dating/youth domestic violence courts, drug courts, DUI court in schools program, mental health courts, and peer/youth courts.

expand all collapse all

All Rise

Collaborative justice key principles, as defined by the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee, based on All Rise's 10 components described in "Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components "Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components," are as follows:

Collaborative justice courts integrate services with justice system processing.
Collaborative justice courts emphasize achieving the desired goals without using the traditional adversarial process.
Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the collaborative justice court program.
Collaborative justice courts provide access to a continuum of services, including treatment and rehabilitation services.
Compliance is monitored frequently.
A coordinated strategy governs the court's responses to participants' compliance, using a system of sanctions and incentives to foster compliance.
Ongoing judicial interaction with each collaborative justice court participant is essential.
Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
Effective collaborative justice court operations require continuing interdisciplinary education.
Forging partnerships among collaborative justice courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations increases the availability of services, enhances the program's effectiveness, and generates local support.
Effective collaborative justice courts emphasize a team and individual commitment to cultural competency. Awareness of and responsiveness to diversity and cultural issues help ensure an attitude of respect within the collaborative justice court setting.

Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee

The Judicial Council’s Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee advises the Judicial Council regarding collaborative justice, or problem-solving, courts. It makes recommendations to the Judicial Council for developing collaborative justice courts, improving their processing of cases, and overseeing the evaluation of such courts throughout the state.

The mission of the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee is to:
Mediator Referral List | Superior Court of California | County of Tulare
Fax: (559)432-5620roliver@bakermanock.com

Half Day $3,000
	Full Day $5,000
$500 per additional hour 

Resume on file

James M. Phillips8080 N. Palm Ave, Suite 101
	Fresno, CA 93711Phone: (559) 261-9340Fax: (888) 974-4321phillipsgp@aol.com

$2,500 per side (Half Day)
$4,000 per side (Full Day)
$650 per additional hour

Resume on file

Michael L. Renberg1540 E. Shaw Ave, Suite 123
	Fresno, CA 93710
Phone: (559) 431-6300Fax: (559) 432-1018mrenberg@prcelaw.com

$350.00 per hour
Resume on file

Laurie Quigley Saldana791 Price Street. #323
	Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Phone: (559) 730-1812laurie@mediationcentral.net

$350.00 per hour

Resume on file

Andrew R. Weis7109 North Fresno Street, Suite 250
	Fresno, CA 93270
Phone: (559) 438-2080
	Cell: (559) 259-4663aweiss@weissmartin.com

$300.00 per hour

Resume on file

 

 Was this helpful?
 

Yes

No

Yes

No

Any additional feedback?

Email (optional)

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Leave this field blank

Was this helpful?
 

Public Resources

Holiday Calendar

Attorney Resources

Case Search

Forms & Local Rules

Administrative

ADA Information

Contact

Jobs

Quick Links

Judicial Mentorship Program

Superior Court of California
County of Tulare

 

 

 

Judicial Branch of California

Privacy

Terms of Use

© 2024
Mediación en casos de desalojo | California Courts | Self Help Guide
¿Tiene Alguna Pregunta Sobre Eviction?
Busque el botón "Chatee ahora" en la esquina inferior derecha de su pantalla. Si no lo ve, desactive los bloqueadores de ventanas emergentes/anuncios de su navegador.

CALIFORNIA COURTS | SELF HELP GUIDE

 

 

 Judicial Branch of California

Términos de uso

Política de privacidad

 ©
 2024
Civil Case Coordination - superior_courts
Coordination brings to one court two or more "civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law [that] are pending in different courts." (Code Civ. Proc., § 404) The statutory reference to "different courts" means courts in different counties.
Distinct from coordination is the process of consolidation. Consolidation is the procedure for uniting separate actions involving common questions of fact or law that are pending in the same county. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 403, 404, 1048(a).)

When is coordination appropriate?
Not all separate actions sharing common questions of fact or law should be coordinated. Coordination is appropriate if it will promote the ends of justice, taking into account whether (a) the common question of fact or law predominates and is significant to the litigation; (b) the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; (c) the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; (d) the efficient use of judicial resources;(e) the calendar of the courts; (f) the disadvantage of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; (g) and the likelihood of settlement without further litigation if coordination is denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)

What is a complex action?
Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court defines a complex civil action. If the actions are complex, a petition is filed with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.)
If the actions are not complex, a motion to coordinate is filed directly in the court where the actions are to be transferred and where one of the included actions is pending, rather than with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)1
1On September 21, 1996, the statutes and rules were changed so that they now direct parties to file a motion to coordinate noncomplex actions directly with one of the courts in which an action is pending.

Must all the plaintiffs or all the defendants in one of the actions agree that coordination is appropriate?
Rocky Mountain MIRECC for Suicide Prevention - Talking to Kids (T2K) about Suicide - MIRECC / CoE
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) for Youth — www.taps.org/youthprograms/
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) for Young Adults (ages 18-25) — www.taps.org/youngadults/
Grief Camps for kids

Comfort Zone Camp
Eluna Network's Camp Erin

A Last Note
This information is intended to help inform and guide adults when talking with a teenager about a suicide attempt in the family. It is not intended to replace the advice of a mental health professional. In fact, it may be best to use this along with professional support if you or your teenager is struggling with how to talk about this difficult topic.

We'd Like Your Feedback
 
If you have used the Talking to Children about a Suicide Attempt in Your Family we'd like you to complete a short survey so we can make the guides better. We'd like to know how the guides were used, which guides were used and what would make them better. Take the confidential survey.

Site Map

Home

About Us

Staff

Newsletter

Research

Our Research

Participation & Resources

Study Websites

Education

Order Products

Fellowships

Multimedia

Clinical

Risk Assessment & Management

Postvention

Clinical Tools

Last Updated 29 Sept 2021

return to top 

CONNECT

 Veterans Crisis Line:
Call: 988 (Press 1)
Social Media

Complete Directory 

EMAIL UPDATES

Email Address Required

Button to subscribe to email

VA HOME

Notices
Privacy
FOIA
Regulations
Web Policies
No FEAR Act
Whistleblower Rights & Protections
Site Index
USA.gov
White House
Inspector General

QUICK LIST

Apply for Benefits
Apply for Health Care
Prescriptions
My HealtheVet
Life Insurance Online Applications
VA Forms
State and Local Resources
Strat Plan FY 2014-2020 
VA Plans, Budget, & Performance
VA Claims Representation

RESOURCES

Careers at VA
Employment Center
Returning Service Members
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
As the Legislature considers the options in this report, it may wish also to consider how it would like to be kept up to date and/or provide input through these ongoing efforts. Additionally, for any actions the Legislature chooses to take, it also may wish to consider how to incorporate findings from the ongoing administration efforts.
Reporting Suspected Maltreatment
Review Policies and Standardize Training for Most Frequent Mandated Reporters. Currently, mandated reporters are not required by the state to receive standardized training (and most are not required to participate in training at all). The Legislature could consider adopting specific required training modules for the mandated reporters with the most exposure to children, such as teachers and other school personnel, medical professionals, law enforcement, social workers, and child care workers. In adopting these trainings, the Legislature could direct DSS to ensure there is sufficient information provided to help mandated reporters distinguish between reportable general neglect—wherein children are at substantial risk of harm—and the conditions of economic hardship. In addition, the trainings could outline other services—outside of the child welfare system—that could help families facing economic challenges. 
Some counties already are moving toward this approach. For example, Humboldt County has adopted a mandated reporting tool that helps reporters determine whether their concern rises to the level of statutory maltreatment. The tool also includes contact information for various other services, such as food and housing assistance, to help mandated reporters facilitate referrals to those programs. Los Angeles County is planning to introduce a similar tool. The Legislature could assess any available findings from these counties to inform consideration of similar changes statewide. 
 Consider What Mandated Reporting Reforms Will Be Needed to Implement Community Pathway. As noted in the previous section of this report, developing guidance around a community pathway option—that is, a mechanism to refer families to prevention services provided by a community‑based organization without substantial child welfare agency involvement—is a current focal area for CWC and the administration. While many details around community pathway implementation have yet to be determined, mandated reporters potentially could have a significant role to play in referring families to community‑based supports. The state’s mandated reporting statute likely will need to be updated to provide legislative guidance around when it is appropriate for mandated reporters to refer families via the community pathway.
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
As such, these goals of keeping children safe and keeping children with their parent(s)/caregiver(s) sometimes may seem at odds with one another. Getting it wrong—either removing a child who could remain safely at home with the right supports, or leaving a child in a harmful or dangerous situation—can have dire consequences and result in trauma to children and families. In this section, we lay out some issues related to these key tensions inherent to the child welfare system.
Mitigating Trauma
Public Health Research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Links Maltreatment With Negative Health Outcomes. ACEs are associated with a range of negative physical and behavioral health outcomes long term, such as increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, substance abuse, and mental health challenges. These negative impacts become much more likely for individuals having four or more ACEs. Research specifies that children who experienced various forms of maltreatment and family instability faced 16 percent to 28 percent higher risk for premature death depending on the type of maltreatment/instability. Research also has shown ACEs and excessive or prolonged exposure to stressors—known as toxic stress response—can make individuals more prone to certain health issues and impact parental behaviors. Furthermore, some studies have focused on how the impacts of trauma may be passed down, potentially increasing risk for trauma and maltreatment—and the various associated negative impacts—across generations within certain families and communities. 
Research Shows Youth Who Experience Maltreatment Are More Likely to Experience Other Negative Outcomes. Children who have experienced the traumas associated with child maltreatment—whether or not they are placed into foster care—are significantly more likely to experience negative longer‑term life outcomes. In particular, research has found that youth experiencing maltreatment are less likely to graduate high school, less likely to attend college or university and to graduate, more likely to experience homelessness, more likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to be referred to substance use disorder treatment. In addition, research has found these outcomes are worse for foster youth compared to other youth experiencing poverty who did not experience foster care. 
Child Welfare System Intervention May Be Necessary for Child Safety, but Also May Result in Additional Trauma.
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
Stated legislative intent of these new laws is to: (1) decrease the number of unsubstantiated general neglect allegations that disproportionately impact Black and Native American children (AB 2085), and (2) ensure that families are not subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and children are not separated from their parents based on conditions of economic hardship (SB 1085). 

Increasing Focus on Behavioral Health. Beyond the child welfare system itself, significant legislative efforts have focused on California’s health care system—including behavioral health programs and services. Ongoing efforts include multiyear initiatives led by the Department of Health Care Services, such as California Advancing and Innovating Medi‑Cal, proposed changes to the Mental Health Services Act, and the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. Although most behavioral health services are delivered outside of the child welfare system, this policy area is a notable area of legislative focus given that: (1) services for mental health and substance use disorder can be important forms of child maltreatment prevention, and (2) many parents/caregivers and children who become involved with the child welfare system require these services as components of their overall child welfare case plans. 
Inherent Challenges of the Child Welfare System
Decisions made within the child welfare system must prioritize safety, which may in some cases mean children cannot remain with their parent(s)/caregiver(s), at least on a temporary basis. At the same time, the child welfare system aims to strengthen families and keep children with their parent(s)/caregiver(s) whenever possible. As such, these goals of keeping children safe and keeping children with their parent(s)/caregiver(s) sometimes may seem at odds with one another. Getting it wrong—either removing a child who could remain safely at home with the right supports, or leaving a child in a harmful or dangerous situation—can have dire consequences and result in trauma to children and families. In this section, we lay out some issues related to these key tensions inherent to the child welfare system.
Mitigating Trauma
Public Health Research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Links Maltreatment With Negative Health Outcomes.
Self-Help Glossary - selfhelp
This means that, whenever possible, special education students must be placed in regular classrooms with their mainstream, nondisabled peers while still having their special educational needs met.
[ Top of Page ]
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L |
| M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W |
 
M
magistrate: A judicial officer with the power to issue arrest warrants and find probable cause at preliminary hearings. (Compare with commissioner, judge, referee.)
maim: To cripple or mutilate in any way; to injure a person in a way that deprives him or her of the use of any limb or other part of his or her body; to seriously wound, disfigure, or disable. (See also mayhem.)
malfeasance: Performance of an act that should not have been done at all. (Compare with misfeasance, nonfeasance.)
mandatory: Required, ordered.
manifestation determination: Part of a pre-expulsion assessment in which the individualized education program (IEP) team figures out if a special education student's misconduct that otherwise could result in expulsion is, instead, a direct manifestation of that student's identified disability and, therefore, not something for which the student may be expelled from school.
manslaughter: The unlawful, but unintended killing of a person. Can be voluntary, like when someone is killed unlawfully under circumstances that don't include a premeditated intent to kill. Or involuntary, like when someone is killed unintentionally as a result of someone else performing another unlawful act or negligently performing a lawful act. (Compare with murder; see also homicide.)
marital settlement agreement: In a dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or annulment, a stipulated judgment will often include a marital settlement agreement (MSA). A marital settlement agreement is a written contract between you and your spouse that contains detailed legal wording about how the issues in your case will be handled.
DUI Court in Schools - collaborative_justice
Adult Courts
Grants/Funding
Juvenile Collaborative Courts

Youth Domestic Violence/Dating Courts Overview
Juvenile Drug Courts Overview
DUI Court in Schools
Juvenile Mental Health Courts Overview
Peer/Youth Courts Overview
Girls' Courts/ CSEC Courts Overview

Research and Publications

Print

 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Judicial Council of California developed and implemented the Real DUI Court in Schools Project in 2006 with funding from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). The goal of the program is to lower the number of teen Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses in California by effecting change in the attitudes and behavior of youth, for whom traffic collisions are the leading cause of death. This is accomplished by educating teens and parents on the dangers of drinking and DUI through live DUI court trials and sentencing programs conducted in schools.  These programs are among the more promising approaches in DUI prevention today. Arrivealiveca.org is a non-profit organization offering DUI Courts in School programs through a variety of platforms, including live streaming and in-person assemblies. They produced this short video discussing the structure and importance of DUI Courts in Schools. 

 
DUI Court in Schools Training Manual
The DUI Court in Schools Training Manual was developed for courts and educators who wish to jointly develop a DUI prevention training program in school.
The Training Manual was produced under the direction of the program's planning committee, which consisted of technical and educational experts in the area of teen DUI prevention.
 

Collaborative Justice Courts

Adult Courts
Grants/Funding
Juvenile Collaborative Courts

Youth Domestic Violence/Dating Courts Overview
Juvenile Drug Courts Overview
DUI Court in Schools
Juvenile Mental Health Courts Overview
Peer/Youth Courts Overview
Girls' Courts/ CSEC Courts Overview

Research and Publications

© 2024 Judicial Council of California

Site Map 
 | Careers 
 | Contact Us 
 | Accessibility 
 | Public Records 
 | Terms of Use 
 | Privacy 
 | Newsroom

Site Map 
 | Careers 
 | Contact Us 
 | Accessibility

 | Public Records 
 | Terms of Use 
 | Privacy

 | Newsroom

 	© 2024 Judicial Council of California