Domestic Violence Council
Court Systems Meeting
Monday, September 21, 2015 from 12:15 – 1:15 p.m.
Location: 111 N. Market Street, Suite 950, San Jose, CA
I.
Introductions
II.
Public Comment
III.
Approval of Minutes
• Vote on approval of minutes for the April 20 and August 17, 2015 meetings.
IV.
Membership
V.
FY 2014-2015 Work Plan updates. (Goal 4, Supporting Activity point #3)
VI.
FY 2015-2016 Work Plan updates.
VII
New Business
• DVAP 16-week program guidelines (Jill Howard)
VIII. New Business Updates
•
•
•
•
•
BIP no-fee orders (Jill Howard)
CPO modification process (Judge Guerrero-Daley)
Ad hoc committee to discuss 16 wk CAP program
SJPD RO Service Form for family court cases
Minor RO’s in Juv. Dep. cases (Jennifer Kelleher-Cloyd)
IX. Reports
•
•
•
•
•
Courts
Departmental
Community Agencies
Projects
Announcements
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
Domestic Violence Council
o Annual Domestic Violence Conference – October 23, 2015 - “Challenging
Conventional Wisdom”
VIII. Next meetings, dates and locations
• 2016 dates? (1/18, MLK; Feb 15, Wash.)
• October 19th, (Suite 950)
November 16th (Suite 950), * No meeting in December
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
COURT SYSTEMS STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE COUNCIL
FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 WORK PLAN
AND
2014-2015 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Members: Committee Co-Chairs: Hon. Julie Emede (Family Court) and Hon. L. Michael
Clark (Juvenile Dependency Court); Committee Members: John Nieman (Secretary,
Dependency Advocacy Center); Zakia Afrin (MAITRI & CPEDV-PPRC); Joanna Demetriou
(SCC Sheriff's Office); Brenda Farrell-Thomas (Family Court Services); Phoenix Forbes
(YWCA); Nicki Ford (attorney); Cindy Hendrickson (SCC District Attorney's Office); Jill
Howard (Family and Children Services); Hon. Margaret Johnson (Superior Court, Juvenile
Justice); Jennifer Kelleher Cloyd (Legal Advocates for Children and Youth); Nancy Marshall
(DVIC); Carl McGrew (SCC Pre-Trial Services); Geraldine Foley (SCC Probation Department);
Julie Saffren (Chair of the DVC, attorney); Jana Taylor (SCC Probation Department); Hon.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
Domestic Violence Council
Teresa Guerrero-Daley (Supervising Judge, Criminal Family Violence Court); Linda Hsiao
(Department of Children’s and Family Services).
.
Committee Interested Parties: Judge Andrea Flint (Criminal Court – Supervisor Family
Violence Division); Luis Quinones (Family First); Maria Reyes (YWCA Support Network);
Carmen Vargas (Probation); Fariba Soroosh (Family Court Facilitator’s Office); Ruth Patrick
(Women SV); Anthony Sosa (Bay Area Legal Aid); Lyzette Estrada-Valencia (YWCA); Jake
Rhodes (SCC Public Defender’s Office); Sarah McCarthy (SCC Public Defender’s Office)
MISSION STATEMENT: Court Systems is a multi-functional committee of representatives
from Domestic Violence courts, law enforcement, county agencies, service providers,
community agencies and advocates, all with a stake in domestic violence matters in Santa Clara
County. The mission of the Court Systems Committee is to enhance victim-survivor safety and
improve accountability for perpetrators through coordination among these stakeholders and
reporting to the Domestic Violence Council on ways in which the court system can better
coordinate its response to domestic violence issues, including services, training, education and
the administration of justice.
Committee Meeting Time/Place: 3rd Mondays from 12:15 – 1:15pm; 111. N. Market Street,
#950, San Jose
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
Domestic Violence Council
FISCAL YEAR 2015 WORK PLAN
GOAL/OBJECTIVE
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
•
1. Coordinate with the
Batterer’s Intervention
Committee regarding the
maintenance of the list of
providers for the Conflict
Accountability Program and
Parenting Without Violence
Program and the process for
monitoring compliance with
program expectations and
provide feedback
(Participants: Geraldine
Foley, Brenda FarrellThomas, and Linda Hsiao)
2. Review and evaluate
•
•
•
current juvenile justice courts
approach to issue of teen
domestic violence and
develop plan to address gaps
(Leads: Hon. Margaret
Johnson and Jennifer
Kelleher Cloyd)
•
•
Complete a survey of
current primary
domestic violence
intervention providers
and programs
Identify entity
responsible to maintain
records of providers
and ensure compliance
with the Principles of
the Conflict of
Accountability Program
adopted in
approximately 2007
and
Identify entity
responsible to give
feedback to providers
when out of compliance
Review current
processes regarding a)
probation conditions
and services (including
incorporation of trauma
informed services while
also holding wards
accountable); and b)
services offered to
victims, and children of
the relationship; and c)
preventative services to
youth who would
otherwise be brought to
Juvenile Justice Court
Identify gaps in
processes
Formulate plans to
address gaps and
develop best practices
PRIORITY
RANKING
TIMELINE
FOR
COMPLETION
1
Q2
2
Q4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
Domestic Violence Council
3. Evaluate the ways court
•
systems affect access to
housing for families affected
by domestic violence and
develop best practices to
prevent the negative effects of
housing instability on those
families (Leads: Julie Saffren
and Nicki Ford)
•
•
Identify the range of
court systems where
orders are made
related to housing or
related to the economic
support necessary for
housing stability (e.g.
family, juvenile,
probate, unlawful
detainer, small claims)
Gather information from
stakeholders from
those court systems on
existing gaps and on
opportunities to mitigate
the negative affects of
housing instability on
children
Consider the
development of best
practices to address
gaps in the areas of
greatest impact
3
Q4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
Domestic Violence Council
PRIOR YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
GOAL/OBJECTIVE
ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING
GOAL
•
1. Review information from
the Domestic Violence Death
Review Team showing the
number of domestic violence
restraining orders has
decreased to determine, if
possible, reasons for the drop
– both positive and negative and make recommendations,
if any, to the Domestic
Violence Council based on
findings. (Leader: James
Gibbons-Shapiro (tentative))
•
•
•
•
•
2. Explore and identify means
by which Santa Clara County
courts can increase safety of
adults and children exposed
to domestic violence .
(Leaders: Nancy Marshall and
Brenda Farrell-Thomas)
•
•
•
•
•
•
STATUS
Identify stakeholders with
information about restraining
orders (Complete)
Identify methods to collect data
from stakeholders above
(including data regarding
children exposed to domestic
violence). Ensure collaboration
with BIC and others.
Collect data as determined
above. (Complete)
Review data from stakeholders
to determine reasons for the
drop in number of restraining
orders (Complete)
Identify both positive and
negative reasons restraining
order numbers may be
dropping. (Complete)
For negative reasons, identify
gaps and make
recommendations to the DVC to
address those gaps.
Partially complete.
To make
recommendations to
DVC, further
analysis would be
required.
Define achievable scope for
2014-2015
Identify stakeholders and
method to reach out to them
Gather information from
stakeholders regarding court
experience
Identify gaps in services or
processes
Make recommendations to
address gaps
Include trauma informed focus
Incomplete.
Consider addressing
this issue again after
new family court
building is complete
and occupied.
•
•
•
•
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
Domestic Violence Council
3. Review access and use of
counseling for children
exposed to domestic violence,
in collaboration with the
Children’s Issues Committee
(Leads: Judge Emede and
Maureen Lowell)
•
•
•
•
4. Develop and document
best practices when a
victim/complaining witness in
a Criminal DV matter is
reluctant
or refusing to testify
(Portion carried over from
2013-2014)
Review practices and authority
to make referrals and orders for
child counseling in criminal,
dependency, juvenile justice,
family and probate courts
Investigate available resources
(including qualifications) and
identify gaps in services
Create recommendations to
improve access and use of
counseling for children exposed
to domestic violence, including
developing a procedure for
referrals and/or orders
consistent with Children’s
Issues Committee
recommendations
• Form interdisciplinary ad hoc
committee to discuss the issue
(Complete)
• Identify limits and resources
(Complete)
• Develop and document best
practices in light of existing law,
professional responsibility,
safety, and the fair
administration of justice (In
progress)
Court Systems
Activity is ended issues now taken up
in Children’s Issues
Committee
Expected to be
completed by Q4
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations in
this meeting should notify the Clerk of the Board’s Office prior to the meeting at
(408) 299-5001, or TDD (408) 993-8272.
Note to Committee Members: Please contact John Nieman, jnieman@sccdac.org before 5:00 pm on the day
prior to the meeting if you are unable to attend.
COURT SYSTEMS MEETING MINUTES
April 20, 2015
111 N. Market Street, Suite 950, San Jose, CA
PRESENT: Judges Julie Emede, L. Michael Clark, and Sunil R. Kulkami (for Theresa
Guerrero-Daley); Brenda Farrell-Thomas; Nicole Ford; John Nieman; Nancy Marshall;
Geraldine Foley; Carl McGrew; Ruth Patrick; Luis Quiñones; Cindy Hendrickson; Jennifer
Kelleher Cloyd; Anthony Sosa; Jake Rhodes; Julie Saffren; Carmen Vargas; Lizette Valencia;
Linda Hsiao; Jill Howard; Sarah McCarthy; Zakia Afrin; Phoenix Forbes; Alma Lopez; Maria
Reyes; Jana Taylor; Jim Demertzis.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Quorum: Voting member quorum reached.
Public comment: No comment.
Membership: Linda Hsiao was voted to be a member.
Minutes: Minutes for March 16, 2015, were approved.
Work Plan discussion: 2015-2016 Work Plan as accepted will be presented to the Board of
Supervisor’s, tomorrow 4/21 by PSJC.
6. Progress on the 2015-2016 Work Plan:
Goal #1: The basic question was posed by Judge Emede about who is responsible to
construct the list of approved DV service providers (of BIP, CAP, P w/o V)?, and how
does the Court communicate that list to the public and participate in its creation?
Discussion ensued: Geraldine Foley suggested that the committee gather and pool current
lists so all judicial officers have the same list. Jana Taylor suggested that a quality
assurance/control methodology be incorporated into the way providers achieve and
maintain their eligibility to be on the list. Julie Saffren has the DVC-approved standards
for the classes and agreed with the suggestion that an Ad-Hoc committee be formed to
develop and maintain the lists. Julie noted, however that maintaining the lists would be
an ongoing process and so inappropriate for an Ad-Hoc Committee. The general
consensus was to get the lists and methodology/process of maintenance up and running
and then decide how to handle the lists over the long-term.
Further discussion followed: Brenda Farrell-Thomas said that the Family Court has
discussed who holds and uses the list and how it is distributed. Nancy Marshall
questioned whether or not differences between programs is fully understood. Carl
McGrew suggested that there are occasional pre-trial releases based upon participation in
CAP or other programs, -this was confirmed by Judge Kulkami and Jake Rhodes.
Apparently providers won’t permit participation without a court order. DFCS is an
exception where a referral is made by a Social Worker (related to an open case). Nancy
Marshall said that key is that the program have something to hold the client accountable,
in terms of a document like a police report or an RO, if self-referred. It was suggested
that Mica Fuller be consulted for her input around the question of how programs ensure
1
accountability. Geraldine Foley suggested that it would be good to get Judges input
about what they would like to see in progress and completion reports from DV programs.
Goal #3 The DVC is looking into partnering with various organizations like DV
Housing First and the Gates Foundation to figure out how to increase safety by making
housing the 1st priority.
Goal #4 (Prior Year) A paper will be distributed regarding progress of the best practices
team’s work.
7. Other business:
1) BIP no-fee orders Jill Howard raised the question of situations where a court orders
participation in a BIP program without paying. Her concern is that BIP’s lose too
much $ and stand to fail even without such orders.
Discussion ensues: A question is raised as to whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to
order a program to serve someone for free. The question of accountability is also raised
since it is fundamental to DV programs; that the client be accountable. Linda Hsiao
indicates that even with contracts from DFCS clients must at least make a $5 co-pay.
There is general agreement that usually programs determine a client’s ability to pay.
While there is a suggestion that no one has NO $, there is also recognition that some
clients are truly homeless and unemployed or disabled in some way.
Jill: finances account for virtually all provider failures. The statute says that the Court
must spread out the costs of those who cannot pay with those who can. BIP’s cannot bear
the costs of those who cannot afford to pay.
Julie Saffren: DVC will look to form an Ad-Hoc Committee to address this issue and it
is on the 5/1 agenda.
2) CPO modification process Nicole Ford There is an issue with service of CPO
modifications: the victim shows up but it is not known if service is proper to the other
side (defendant) which causes delays.
Discussion ensues: Judge Kulkami confirms that defendants are not always getting
notice. Statute may require 5 days notice though this may be practically insufficient time.
There is also sometimes an issue if a judge who did not preside over the issuance of the
initial protective order hears the modification request.
Julie Saffren announces this year’s DV conference is October 23 and is about
Challenging Conventional Wisdom and New Practice Innovations.
Departmental/Agency/Project Reports: None.
Meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
John Nieman
2
COURT SYSTEMS MEETING MINUTES
August 17, 2015
111 N. Market Street, Suite 950, San Jose, CA
PRESENT: Judges Julie Emede, Andrea Flint, Margaret Johnson, and Theresa GuerreroDaley; Brenda Farrell-Thomas; John Nieman; Geraldine Foley; Carl McGrew; Luis Quiñones;
Cindy Hendrickson; Julie Saffren; Carmen Vargas; Ruth Patrick; Linda Hsiao; Alma Lopez;
Jana Taylor; Nancy Marshall; Jim Demertzis; Cindy Hendrickson; Sarah McCarthy; Jennifer
Kelleher Cloyd; Mayra Sierra; Erin Orum
1.
2.
3.
4.
Quorum: Voting member quorum was reached.
Public comment: None.
Membership: no changes, so action taken
Minutes: Approval of April minutes was deferred until the next meeting (because the
Secretary failed to make the minutes available for re-review).
5. Progress on the 2014-2015 Work Plan:
Goal #4: Julie Saffren handed out a summary of the ad-hoc committee’s work, focusing
on the initial conclusions to date: 1) Early intervention is key; 2) an agency to refer reluctant
witnesses needs to be available where a broad range of issues related to testimony can be
discussed with the benefits of an attorney-client relationship –appropriate training should be
provided to that agency; 3) the court must limit involvement in order to maintain neutrality.
Further work will ensue to finalize/refine the recommendations. There was general agreement
that the ad-hoc committee was doing productive and important work that bears completing.
6. Progress on the 2015-2016 Work Plan:
Goal #1: The search for the very elusive old affidavits for 52-week BIP programs has
now turned toward Judge Emede, perhaps included in the back of her present
courtroom/chambers where apparently old documents related to DV have accumulated. Hopes
run high. The Principals of the CAP classes have been located.
7. New business:
1) Jennifer Kelleher-Cloyd: Sometimes minors with open Juvenile Court cases file for
RO’s in Family Court. Sometimes a Juvenile case opens after an RO is petitioned in Family
Court but before a non-temporary order is granted in Family Court. There needs to be clear
protocols on how to handle such situations. Judge Guerrero-Daley agrees. Judge Emede
suggests possibly adding this to the Goal #2. Discussion ensues and a decision to form an adhoc committee is made and volunteers are chosen. Ms/ Kelleher-Cloyd will follow up with
proposed meeting dates by email.
2) Judge Emede: Apparently SJPD is sometimes using forms that are insufficient for
service of process for RO’s issued out of Family Violence Court. It is suggested that the
Sheriff’s office has a form that is adequate.
8. New business updates:
1) BIP no-fee orders: Cindy Hendrickson: The PD thinks there’s a conflict of
1
interest. The DA thinks it would be improper to give $ to batterers. The offer to partner with
other agencies to fund a study of resources and need for funding for BIP attendees without an
ability to pay for the course has not been responded to, so it is off the table. There is still
general agreement that this issue needs to be addressed. There is a very brief discussion about
who should bear the financial burden of the course cost for those without an ability to pay.
Nancy Marshall opines that legislation might be necessary to fix the issue. The Secretary
suggests that data would be helpful to efforts to change the law to provide funding. The matter
will remain on the agenda for next month.
2) CPO modification process: Judge Guerrero-Daley reiterated the issue, namely that
court time is being wasted by inadequate service and no-shows. One suggestion was that
victims go to the DA’s office to get a modification of a protective order. Cindy Hendrickson
suggested that it might be easier to serve defendants who are on probation through the probation
officers. Sarah McCarthy says that there is almost an agreement on a protocol for various
instances when a victim wants a modification. A discussion ensues where the need for a victim
advocate is available to advise the person requesting modification. One concern is that the
court should not be referring anyone to such an advisement. It is suggested that whoever would
initially serve the victim would make the referral. In any case, the hardship to the victim,
paucity of options, the role of the court, and agencies like Next Door Solutions as providers is
discussed. Judge Johnson points out that the protocol allows the Family Court to place matter
on a criminal court calendar.
3) 16-week CAP Program: Judge Guerrero-Daley said she has the affidavit template
intended for CAP providers available for the ad-hoc committee.
Meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted, John Nieman
2
FOR COURT USE ONLY
CONFLICT AND ACCOUNTABLITY PROGRAM PROVIDER (Name and Address):
TELEPHONE NO:
FAX NO. (Optional):
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
STREET ADDRESS:
170 Park Center Plaza
MAILING ADDRESS:
191 North First Street
CITY & ZIP CODE:
BRANCH:
San Jose, California 95113
Park Center Plaza Courthouse – Family
ANNUAL DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
CONFLICT ACCOUNTABILITY
, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I
I,
Name of Professional Provider
and everyone I employ as a provider of Conflict and Accountability agree to abide by the standards for
structure and content as published on September 16, 2008 by the Conflict and Accountability Task Group, a
subcommittee of the DV Court Systems Committee. This publication is attached and available on the Court’s
website at www.sccsuperiorcourt.org.
Name of Provider:
Address of Provider:
Name of Signatory:
Signature of Signatory:
Date:
Please send completed form to:
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Attn: Family Court Services
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
OR FAX TO:
Family Court Services (408) 534-5791
FM-1084 REV. 5/19/09
ANNUAL DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
CONFLICT ACCOUNTABILITY
Page 1 of 1
Principles of the Conflict Accountability Program
Curriculum Task Group
Final Report
Introduction
In 2006 the domestic violence provider community in seeking best practices for participants
ordered to attend psycho-educational programs to stop disrespectful, abusive, intimidating and/or
violent behaviors in intimate partner or former intimate partner relationships, to increase their
level of accountability for their behavioral choices, and to develop skills to exercise different
behavioral choices, proposed that an alternative non-certified 16 week course be offered. The
Criminal Courts acknowledged the need for such a class for those defendants who had been
convicted of a crime based on conduct related to domestic abuse but who did not meet the
standards to be required to be placed on formal probation. Family Court and Juvenile
Dependency Court also acknowledged a need in the community to offer a group for clients
whose needs did not meet the criteria of participation in the Certified Batterer’s Intervention
Program. There was a common understanding that these groups would address the needs of
clients who may find themselves in a relationship where there is sufficient conflict that has been
identified by a referral source as problematic.
In an effort to create standards for this 16 week group, and given concerns regarding the lack of a
standardized curriculum for “Parenting Without Violence” groups, the Court System’s
Committee formed a Curriculum Review Subcommittee in June 2007. A Task Force was created
to establish basic principles for this alternative 16 week program, herein referred to as the
Conflict Accountability Program (CAP).
Providers and referring agencies were invited to attend Task Force meetings. Participants were
identified through Probation’s list of Certified Programs, attendees at the Court System’s
Committee meetings, and via e-mail meeting notification. The group met a total of 10 times,
and was facilitated by Barbara Krzyczkowska, MFT who had worked with Rolanda Pierre-Dixon
in establishing the standards for Batterer’s Intervention Groups in 1991. Participants included
Lisa Banks, Calvin Bechum, Victoria Colligan, Sallie Danenberg, Zohreh Gharaati, Lilly Grenz,
Mica Fuller, Nancy Marla Johannim, Nancy Marshall, Daniel Nishigaya, Julie Saffron, and
Debbie Sayre. The recommended guidelines have been adapted from the Standards for Certified
Batterer Intervention Programs and Parenting Without Violence Groups.
Page 2
CAP
Final Report
Program Philosophy
The emphasis of CAP is upon personal accountability for one’s own behaviors, while at the same
time holding the safety of victims as a primary concern There is also a recognition that the
choice to exercise self-control is independent of external factors, and that the underlying etiology
is deeper than loss of control or anger.
Referrals
CAP was developed to accommodate the wide range of needs of participants referred by
Criminal, Family, Unified, Juvenile and Probate Court. These groups should be flexible so as to
address the individual expectations of the referral source and the needs of the client.
Program Content
CAP shall focus on developing personal accountability for one’s own behaviors which
contribute to conflict. The group will address the following:
•
Identifying behaviors that are disrespectful, intimidating, coercive, and/or physically
violent
•
Assisting participants to acknowledge their behaviors
•
Developing an understanding of their motivation and the impact of their actions on
others
•
Exploring alternative behaviors
CAP shall address these issues with an understanding of cultural differences, while also
acknowledging that culture is not an excuse for abuse.
The Task Force acknowledged that specific curricula will vary among providers, and that the
varied curricula provide an opportunity to meet the wide variety of client needs.
Program Structure
The program structure of CAP is based on the program structure of the Certified Batterer’s
Intervention Groups. The purpose of the structure is to maximize the effectiveness of the
program, and to provide safeguards for participants. CAP must be in compliance with
professional and ethical standards, including any applicable laws.
CAP
Final Report
Page 3
CAP consists of 16 consecutive weekly groups, two hours in length not including breaks, which
follow the model of a facilitated psycho-educational group. The length of CAP was modeled
after the Parenting Without Violence program, with the belief that in 16 weeks participants can
learn basic information, and begin the process of behavioral change, but that the depth of
learning may be significantly shorter than in the Certified 52 Week Domestic Violence Batterer’s
Intervention Groups.
Each program shall complete a thorough intake prior to a participant beginning group to assess
their needs and the nature of violence that precipitated the referral. Programs should use their
clinical judgement to place participants in groups that would best meet their needs. However, if
the primary issue is battery, participants shall be placed in a same sex group. If the primary issue
does not involve battery, participants may be placed in a mixed group as long as the partners are
not in the same group, and the participant understands that they will be participating in a mixed
sex group.
Groups shall have a minimum of 3 participants and a maximum of 7 participants with one
facilitator, and a maximum of 15 participants with two facilitators. The groups must be psychoeducational, with a focus on the core concepts.
To successfully complete CAP, participants may not incur more than 2 missed groups during the
program duration. Any absence must be made up for a successful completion of the program.
Participants who incur more than two absences must be terminated from the program. Programs
must have clear written criteria for considering the reinstatement of participants who exceed two
absences.
Programs offering CAP shall have the ultimate authority in the selection of program participants
and, therefore, shall develop and utilize criteria for acceptance and rejection. The program shall
follow a non-discrimination policy.
Provider-Participant Contracts
The use of written contracts provides participants with a clear understanding of program
expectations, grounds for termination, and informed consent. Prior to beginning CAP,
participants shall be provided a written contract that specifies the requirements of the particular
program, including fees, policy regarding missed classes and tardiness, grounds for termination,
reinstatement procedures, and expectations.
Page 4
CAP
Final Report
Given that participants are primarily court ordered, release of information is required to report
compliance to the referring or monitoring agents. Participants must be informed of their rights to
confidentiality, and their choice to release information for purposes of reporting progress.
Participants must be provided a Confidentiality Statement, including the Limits of
Confidentiality. Participants must also be informed in writing under what conditions the
provider will report participant behavior to the referring agents or others.
Staff Qualifications
CAP shall be overseen by a licensed mental health professional, or someone with commensurate
experience in the field of family violence with an understanding of the dynamics of conflict.
The primary facilitator must have at least one year experience in the field of domestic violence,
and be knowledgeable in, but not limited to, partner abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse; dynamics
of conflict, violence and abuse; substance abuse; cultural issues, racism, and ethnocentrism; and
the justice system. Facilitators must also demonstrate an understanding of victimology.
All facilitators must complete 16 hours of continuing education per year in domestic violence or
related issues.
Reporting Requirements
Upon receipt of signed consent and completion of CAP by the participant, the provider must
within 7 business days provide the referring party or monitoring agent a written narrative report
that specifies the participant’s level of accountability, respect for boundaries, and understanding
of the role of anger and other life circumstances which contribute to maltreatment. The report
will also describe the participant’s understanding of the impact of their behavioral choices on
their partner, children and others; and his/her ability to identify alternative strategies. The report
will provide recommendations for any additional interventions.
If the participant has provided a signed consent, the facilitator may report during the course of
the participant’s program any concerns to the referring party or monitoring agent. The facilitator
must comply with Tarasoff and other reporting requirements.
Every effort should be made to provide any identified victims with information regarding CAP
and community resources. Any information obtained from the victim by a program must be held
in confidence except as required by law.
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 882-2700
September 11, 2015
Chambers of
H O N . T E R E S A G U E R R E R O - D A L E Y , Judge
Dear Providers:
The Conflict & Accountability programs and the Parenting Without Violence programs offer invaluable
services to our community that is in need of Domestic Violence counseling. Our Family Violence
Courts, require that, as part of a defendant’s sentence, s/he complete a 16 week Conflict &
Accountability program and/or the Parenting Without Violence program. In order to provide accurate
information to people in need of your services, we are notifying you of the process that will be in place
effective January 1, 2016.
Providers requesting to be on the Court's Resource referral list will be required to send in a signed
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury stating that they agree to abide by the curriculum, standards
and principles described in the attachments.
Please complete, sign and mail the attached Declaration to the “Supervisor of Courtroom ServicesHall of Justice Criminal Court,” 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA, 95113. The Court will be
limiting referrals to those agencies and programs that have submitted a signed Declaration. These
declarations will be kept on file in the office of Courtroom Services at the Hall of Justice. The
Declaration will be due each year by December 1st. If the court does not receive your declaration
each year, it will be an indication that you no longer wish the court to refer people to your program
and therefore your agency will be removed from the referral list effective January 1st of the next year.
Attached is the referral list that the Criminal Family Violence Courts hand out for Conflict &
Accountability programs and Parenting Without Violence programs, please review this list to ensure
the information on the lists, related to your program, is correct. Please note that each program is
required to notify the court of any changes to the address, phone number or name of your program.
The court will require a 2 week notice, if the program’s address, name and/or phone numbers
change, in order for the referral forms to be properly updated.
If you have any questions, please contact Hall of Justice Court Services at 408-808-6800 and ask for
the Supervisor of Courtroom Services.
Thank you for your cooperation in submitting the requested information and for your willingness to
serve our community.
Sincerely,
Teresa Guerrero-Daley,
Criminal Family Violence Supervising Judge
Modifications of Criminal Protective Orders (CPO) by Victims
Reasons for Changes to Process:
A. When a Protected Person (victim) is allowed to go to the Clerk’s Office to place a
case on calendar to modify a Criminal Protective Order, usually from No Contact to
Peaceful Contact, there is no way for the court to assess whether the victim is being
pressured, threatened or coerced to make this request. This process may place an
undue burden on the victim to self assess the danger or risks that may result from a
modification of a protective order.
B. With the current process, there is a lack of Notice to the Defendant and his/her
counsel of court dates set at the Clerk's office by the Protected Person (victim). There
is no personal service, a letter is mailed to the defendant at his/her last known
address. Counsel is not notified that a court date has been set therefore, do not know
to appear at these hearings.
C. Often times the defendants do not appear in court for the modification of a
protective order and there is no proof of service in the court file. The judge has to
decide whether there is a basis to forfeit the Bond or to find good cause, with little or
no information. If the protective order is modified to "No Contact," this places a
defendant that did not receive proper notice at risk of being arrested.
D. A Protected Person is a witness, not a party in a criminal case therefore has no
standing to be placing a case on calendar. S/he has a right to be heard but at an
already scheduled court hearing.
E. Protected Persons often times are eager to modify No Contact orders to Peaceful
Contact and vice versa however, when they go to the Clerk and they are scheduled
with a short turn around of less than two weeks, notice that is mailed to defendants
often does not reach them in time to appear in court. In addition, the protected person
may not have time to take the free class on how to prepare a safety plan that most
Family Violence judges require and what results is that 80 to 90 percent of the time
the protected person fails to appear in court. There are times when the defendant and
his/her attorney are the only ones to appear and are angry about having to waste their
time/money appearing in court, especially when the protected party does not appear,
and there is no consequence for the protected person’s failure to appear.
Setting a Case on Calendar to Modify a Criminal Protective Order
Effective September 8, 2015
1. Pending Cases: A protected person seeking a modification of a protective
order may go to the clerk’s office at HOJ and request to be heard at the next
scheduled court date. The clerk will not set a new court date but can add the
request for a CPO modification to the scheduled court date.
a. If the next court date is too far, the protected persons can contact the
District Attorney’s Office and request that they set a case on calendar on
their behalf.
b. The protected person receive from the Clerk's Office a referral letter to
attend any of the free, one hour classes. There is no guarantee that the
judge will modify the protective order however, the class does assist the
victim in making an informed request to the court.
c. If protected persons appear at regularly scheduled court hearings, they
can receive a referral letter and the judge will inform them of the next
court hearing.
2. Adjudicated Cases, Defendant on Probation: If the defendant is on
probation, the protected person(s) can contact the Probation department and
request that they set a case on calendar on their behalf.
a. The protected person should ask the Probation office for a referral letter
to attend any of the free, one hour classes. There is no guarantee that
the judge will modify the protective order however, the class does assist
the victim in making an informed request to the court.
3. Adjudicated Cases, Defendant Not on Probation: If a defendant is not on
probation, protected persons can contact the District Attorney’s Office to
request that they set a case on calendar on their behalf.
a. The protected person should ask the DA's office for a referral letter to
attend any of the free, one hour classes. There is no guarantee that the
judge will modify the protective order however, the class does assist the
victim in making an informed request to the court.
Copies of the Referral Forms to attend any of the free, one hour programs will be
made available to the public at the following locations:
a. Clerk’s Office, Court’s website
b. District Attorney’s Office
c. Public Defender’s Office
d. Probation Department
e. In any of the Family Violence Courtrooms
Teresa Guerrero-Daley, Family Violence Supervising Judge
2 of 2
FOR COURT USE ONLY
PARENTING WITHOUT VIOLENCE PROVIDER (Name and Address):
TELEPHONE NO:
FAX NO. (Optional):
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
STREET ADDRESS:
170 Park Center Plaza
MAILING ADDRESS:
191 North First Street
CITY & ZIP CODE:
BRANCH:
San Jose, California 95113
Park Center Plaza Courthouse – Family
ANNUAL DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
PARENTING WITHOUT VIOLENCE
I,
, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I
Name of Professional Provider
and everyone I employ as a provider of Parenting Without Violence agree to abide by the standards for
structure and content as published on September 16, 2008 by the Parenting Without Violence Curriculum Task
Group, a subcommittee of the DV Court Systems Committee. This publication is attached and available on the
Court’s website at www.sccsuperiorcourt.org.
Name of Provider:
Address of Provider:
Name of Signatory:
Signature of Signatory:
Date:
Please send completed form to:
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Attn: Family Court Services
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
OR FAX TO:
Family Court Services (408) 534-5791
FM-1085 REV. 5/19/09
ANNUAL DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
PARENTING WITHOUT VIOLENCE
Page 1 of 1
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
HALL OF JUSTICE COURTHOUSE
190 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
Protected Person’s NAME:
Defendant’s NAME:
This letter has been provided to the protected person named above and who seeks to have a
criminal protective order modified. Before a judge addresses this issue in court, the judge would
like this person to receive information regarding the purpose and content of criminal protective
orders, as well as information about safety planning, risk assessment and related issues.
Protected persons are instructed to first call any of the agencies listed in the back of this letter for
an appointment to request a confidential consultation. A protected person can also seek
assistance from other agencies or licensed professionals, not on the list, that specialize
in providing a safety plan for victims of Domestic Violence.
The Family Violence Judges of the Superior Court of California at Santa Clara County are
grateful and appreciate the work of the agencies/licensed professionals providing this free
service. We ask that the protected person be provided with a brief letter confirming that the
protected person's identity was verified by government issued identification, the consultation
took place, and the areas that were covered.
The Court requests that the protected person bring the confirmation letter from the provider and
proof of identification to court.
Thank you.
Teresa Guerrero-Daley
Supervising Judge, Family Violence Unit
Updated 9.1.2015
LIST OF PROVIDERS
NEXT DOOR SOLUTIONS
234 E. GISH ROAD, SUITE 200
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 501-7550
MAITRI
PO BOX 697
SANTA CLARA, CA 95052
408-956-6085
YWCA
375 S. THIRD STREET
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
1(800) 572-2782
YWCA
298 S. SUNNYVALE AVE.
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
1(800) 572-2782
Asian Americans for Community
Involvement (AACI)
2400 Moorpark Ave., Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 975-2739
DISCLAIMER
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara is making this list available as a public service
only. All information listed has been submitted and posted by each provider. Although the Superior
Court is making this list available to you, the Superior Court has not and does not screen or evaluate the
providers, their facilities, or the information they have listed. The Superior Court has not verified any of
the information posted on the list provided. The Superior Court does not recommend or endorse any of
the listed providers nor do they recommend that any of the listed providers will meet the needs of parents
or children. You are responsible for interviewing and selecting a suitable provider. You should contact
providers directly for relevant information. The Superior Court is not a party to any transaction between
the customer and the provider and the Superior Court will not be liable for any cost of the services. The
Superior Court of Santa Clara County is also not responsible for any damages arising directly or
indirectly from services provided by any of the listed providers. By accessing this list, you understand
and agree that the Superior Court is not in any way responsible or liable for the acts, omissions, or
services, of any of the providers, or for any other actions taken based upon the information provided.
Updated 9.1.2015