It was brought to my attention that the big bad legal system does no justice to individuals who have been victims of fraud.


There was no fraud in this case.  The issue that was presented before SCOTUS was one of attorney fees.


In reading the actual opinion below, one shall see that damages were not the matter at hand.  Damages were decided previously.


In the previous 9th Circuit Court Opinion, the case was bifurcated on specific questions. 


Injunctive relief was to have the County declare that its Central Registry for Child Abuse and Neglect was inadequate in providing due process.  Done.


Damages are just what it says, damage.  That was previously remanded to the District Court and decided.  How much, we will never know.


Prospective relief is with the attorney fees.  SCOTUS denied $60,000 for attorney fees.  Attorney fees are part of that whole conundrum called due process, sort of a reimbursement scheme.  Someone should argue that due process is entirely denied to individuals who have diligently sought competent counsel who would take on a due process issue under indigent status.  Hmm.....


Stay tuned.

Court says county doesn't have to pay for mistake

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.

Craig and Wendy Humphries were arrested by sheriff's deputies nine years ago after their rebellious daughter accused them of abuse. State courts ruled the allegation was false but they remain on California's Child Abuse Central Index.

In 2008, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found the system unconstitutional because there's no way for the innocent to clear their names. It ordered the state to come up with a new system and the county to pay $60,000 in attorney fees to the Humphries.

The high court reversed and remanded that decision, saying Los Angeles County does not have to pay.

Los Angeles County argued that it could only be held liable and pay damages if a county policy or custom caused a violation of a constitutional right under a 1978 Supreme Court decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services.

The Child Abuse Central Index was a state policy, the county argued.

The federal appeals courts had also split on whether Monell applies only to damages, or if it also applies to prospective relief as well like injunctions or declaratory judgments such as the 9th Circuit's decision to give the Humphries attorney fees.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the 8-0 opinion for the court, said that it does.

"We conclude that Monell's holding applies to claims against municipalities for prospective relief as well as to claims for damages," Breyer said.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the consideration and decision of the case because she worked on it while in the solicitor general's office.

The ruling addressed only a narrow technical question - whether Monell applied to non-monetary prospective relief - and doesn't affect the appellate court ruling that the Humphries' constitutional rights were violated, said Andrew J. Pincus, a Washington, D.C., attorney who argued the couple's case before the Supreme Court.

"That finding of a constitutional violation remains in full force," Pincus said in an e-mailed statement.

The Humphries still contend that the county "acted, and failed to act, pursuant to its policies and customs," Pincus said. "That issue will be litigated before the district court."

The case was Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.

Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.

Los Angeles Central Registry Case Revealed

LA County defends child abuse listing


By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
3:39 PM PDT, October 5, 2010

Washington…A lawyer for Los Angeles County told the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday that the failure to remove a wrongly accused couple from California's index of reported child abusers was the state's responsibility, not the county's.


I do not think so.  The County received funding, through state budget appropriations to execute this function as a sub-receipient to federal funding.

"It's the state's data base," said attorney Timothy Coates. "There are no state standards and no specific criteria for removing someone from the list. We don't have any procedures on how to go about that."
The case of Craig and Wendy Humphries has highlighted the difficulty of getting off the state index once a person's name has been reported to Sacramento for abusing a child. The state's law requires many agencies and employees, including schools, police and child care workers, to report instances of suspected child abuse.

Not only that, the state entered into contractual agreement upon acceptance of the federal SACWIS and other grants.  The state is the recipient.  The county would be the sub-recipient according to federal guidelines.  No immunity for either.

More than 800,000 names are on California's index, and employers consult the list before hiring people to work with children.

The Humphries were reported to state authorities in 2001 based on the word of his teenage daughter, but a juvenile court judge later pronounced them innocent of the charges. They have been fighting in court for several years to clear their names.



In January of 2009, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals described their "nightmarish encounter" with the California system and ruled that both the state and county were liable for violating their constitutional rights. "There is no effective procedure for the Humphries to challenge this listing," the appeals court said.

Here is the decision:


9th Circuit Opinion in Humphries v Los Angeles County

Humphries v. L.A. County

But the lawyers for the county appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the county should not be liable for this state program. "Where the state law requires a local entity to do something," Coates said, "it's essentially the state making the decision."

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, the state of California did not appeal the decision, but the Humphries remain on the state index.

Here are the transcripts for the oral arguments of October 5, 2010:


U.S. Supreme Court Transcript for LA County v. Humphries

Justice Bennen asks a very powerful question as it is a reflection of the national ignorance of child welfare fraud.

JUSTICE BREYER: -- against State. I mean, 

here you have a statute and the statute doesn't have any method to get out off -- get out of it, even when you should. Their claim is this is a State matter, the State's responsible, it's unconstitutional, go sue the State and tell the State to do it. Now that's a - what's wrong with that position?

2001 was a free-for-all in child welfare funding.  Fraud was rampant.  The main argument as to why a name is not expunged from the central registry is that, if the state and the county removed a person's name from the central registry, it would be an admission of liability in violations of due process.  See, without trial, charge, plea, verdict, or even knowing about it, you are placed on the central registry within a 48 hour period and rarely notified of the action.

By failing to remove a person's name from the central registry, the only recourse after exhausting all administrative avenues would be to bring an instant action.  That takes money and knowledge.  In 2001, the number of attorneys willing to take on any issues dealing with child welfare, was countable on one hand, if lucky.

Child welfare is an entitlement program, funded through Social Security.  This means, through the poverty means test, the person placed on the central registry was poor.  Poor people have no legal representation because state funded legal aid organizations are restricted from taking cases which will generate financial gain and would loose funding if it bit the hand that fed them, meaning a conflict of interest.

Incorporate the cost factor of litigation into the equation, meaning that the governmental entities would motion up on every minutia to the minimum cost of $200 an hour to the plaintiff, the person whose name was placed on the central registry, and you have a mutational algorithm to protect the racketeering enterprise.

"Every day for the last nine years the (Humphries) have suffered a violation of their due process rights," said Washington attorney Andrew Pincus.

Well of course they have suffered.  That is just a tactic to wear out a challenger.

Despite the county's battle in the courts, an official of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services said that reported child abusers can appeal the listing. Michael Watrobski, chief grievance review manager, said the state told local reporting agencies in May of 2008 that they should offer appeals, and he said his office has heard 313 such challenges this year.

Watrobski said in an interview that he did not understand the county's legal argument in the courts. "I have no idea. I really don't understand that," he said.

After the Supreme Court argument, the lawyer for Los Angeles County was asked about Watrobski's office and his assertion that appeals have been heard for more than two years. "That's news to me. I have never heard that," Coates said.