Location: 2201 Broadway 2nd Floor Conference Room

Date: 3/14/2013

Attendees: Helga Zimmerer (San Francisco), Marshell Terry-Battle (Santa Clara), Linh Tran (Santa Clara), Toni Nestore (Contra Costa), Michael Chazanoff (Alameda), and Nicole Gremillion (Contra Costa).

Absent:Ken Adams (Napa), Tracey Belton (San Benito), Lia Russell (Sonoma), Raul Munoz (Marin), Regina Mason (Monterey), Kim McDowell (Solano), Melissa Herceg (Santa Cruz), Michelle Tom (San Mateo), Helen McClain (San Mateo).

I.AGENDA ITEMS:

A.Approval of the Minutes: One change to the minutes. Regina Mason (Monterey) requested to add,“Monterey also has TDM's for children "at-risk" of removal” under item #6.

B.Review of Action Items:

1.Time line of making contacts with parents: (to be addressed by Raul (Marin)

  1. Raul was absent.
  2. Discussions: Making contacts with parents within the 24 hours time line for child abuse/neglect investigation is common practice in many counties. California Division 31 Regulations do not seem to have specific language as to this time line.

2.Time frame when reopening a legal guardianship case: (to be further researched by Nicole (Contra Costa):

  1. Nicole is still researching on this issue. Suggestion is to bring this issue up to BAM for the directors for clarification of protocol: Jurisdiction of which county? (county of legal guardian’s residence or county where the legal guardianship was established via Dependency Court.)
  2. Discussions about the process of relinquishing legal guardianship in different counties. Some counties will assign these referrals as 10-day referrals; other would direct the legal guardian to file a 388 Petition without creating a referral.

3.Removal Warrants:

  1. San Francisco County currently does not require a Protective Custody Warrant to remove children. Most SF social workers remove children based on exigency. The existence of an SDM safety factor that cannot be mitigated is considered exigency. The social worker usually contacts their supervisor by phone prior to removal. There is a protocol in place to obtain a Protective Services Warrant, but is rarely used in emergency response.
    San Francisco has an interview warrant protocol in place for 10 days (obtaining that warrant can take up to 2 or 3 days). The worker does not need to obtain an interview warrant or parental permission for an IR, since an IR is considered exigency in regards to conducting the interview.
  2. Alameda County: most removals require Protective Custody Warrant. Alameda County Social Workers are discouraged to suggest to law enforcement to remove children. Law Enforcement and Social Workers do not jointly interview children.
  3. Contra Costa County: removals are often with law enforcement. CC County has very good relationship with law enforcement.
  4. Santa Clara County: most removals are done by law enforcement or pursuant to a Protective Custody Warrant. In the absent of either one of the above, Social Workers only remove children on a caretaker absence/Incapacity allegation. Santa Clara County has case staffing with at least 3 supervisors and county counsel prior to obtaining a Protective Custody Warrant. Turn-around time for warrants (both Protective Custody and Interview Order) is very quick in Santa Clara County.

4.After-Hour Program:

  1. Discussions of the After-Hour Programs in different counties. Santa Clara and Alameda Counties have Swing-Shift units.
  2. In Alameda County, after hours calls would be diverted to a “call center” and after-hour Social Workers would be the ones to determine whether to respond to an after-hour call.
  3. In Santa Clara County, all after-hour calls would be diverted to an on-call supervisor who would determine whether to send workers out for response.

5.Review of Inter-county Protocol: Held over till April.

C.Action Items: Counties to go back to their county counsels for research on legal guardianship jurisdiction issue.

II.NEXT MEETING:

Thursday: 4/11/13, from: 10am-1pm

2201 Broadway, Oakland

2nd Floor Conference Room