TESTIMONY OF CAROL LAMB HOPKINS BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MAY 9, 1995 

By profession, I am a teacher and school administrator. I was
Deputy Foreman of the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury. That
Jury spent one year investigating Child Protective Services and the
Juvenile Dependency System in San Diego. We received excellent
assistance from the Attorney General' s office who served as our
legal counsel. It was an exhaustive examination of the entire
system From initial reporting, removal, court intervention, foster
care, and adoption. We studied 450 cases where:

* children died from being left in their homes;

* children died in foster homes;

* children were pulled unnecessarily from good homes;

* children were pulled from homes due only to poverty;

* children were permanently lost to their parents by allegations
of abuse which were proven to be false; and on and on and on...

We issued a number of reports which have gained widespread
credit nationally and, indeed, throughout the world. The opposition
to this bill has drawn attention to a second, and indeed, third
Grand Jury reports. I am more than willing to debate the merits and
genesis of the second report, the third reached conclusions similar
to ours -- though stated even more strongly. The record of the
reforms in San Diego stand on their own merits.

There is still much to do. The 1991-92 Grand Jury made a number
of specific recommendations for improvement . The County Board of
Supervisors implemented most of those. Unfortunately, the most
important recommendations can not be implemented by County
government. They call for change at the State and Federal level.

The recommendation we made which we felt was absolutely
essential to the system both to protect children and families is
a change in the immunity law. This year the legislature has two
bills addressing that issue, AB1355, authored by David Knowles, and
SB41, authored by Maurice Johannesen. AB1355 has cleared the
Assembly Floor on its way to the Senate. It is important to note
that it was never the intention of either the Federal government or
the State to give absolute immunity to social workers, but case law
has interpreted the law to give them just that. THINK!

* Would you want an armed police officer to have absolute immunity?

* Would you want doctors to have absolute immunity?

* Would you give anyone the absolute power which comes with absolute
immunity?

* Police officers and doctors are highly trained, licensed, and
regulated.

* By contrast, Child Protection Service social workers are required
to have little to no training depending on the jurisdiction. Some
have only a high school diploma.

CPS workers do not receive psychological screening such as is
required of police officers. CPS workers are not licensed. CPS
workers are not regulated. CPS workers are not required to
participate in continuing education, AND, because of the immunity
provisions, CPS operates totally outside the established system of
civil liability.

* No one -- not the president of the United States or the Chief
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, has such impunity of action.

Critics of this bill say it will have a chilling effect on the
willingness of social workers to remove children. That's the idea,
folks.

* You want social workers to think prior to making a decision which
can permanently effect a child's life one way or the other.

* You want a social worker to think prior to the first act of
dismantling a family.

We demand less of no one else involved in this process.

* A qualified immunity standard does not stop law enforcement from
making arrests, using their weapons, or executing search warrants.
It does help assure that they will not perform any of those actions
maliciously. And, it does ensure that the municipalities, States,
and Feds will not tolerate "bad cops". Most actual removals are
made by law enforcement who already operate with a qualified
immunity standard. Why should social workers have more?

* Doctors have no immunity. But that does not chill a doctor from
making the difficult life and death decisions he or she makes. It
does assure that his hospital, medical group and insurer will have
some stake in ensuring his professional competence and goodwill.

Who supports these bills?

* Families, including mothers, fathers, children, grandparents, and
relatives, who have been destroyed .

* Fathers who have lost their children forever to false allegations
during custody disputes which were never adequately investigated or
were actually promoted by social workers with an agenda.

* Mothers who have had their babies removed from their arms because
of false allegations which have taken years to resolve.

* Children who have been the most profoundly affected victims of the
insensitive, intrusive, intervention of government always with the
bent of intentions.

* Children who are separated from their parents, their siblings,
their homes, schools, and friends.

* Children who are not listened to when they beg to go home.

Support for these bills comes from liberal Democrats like myself
as well as conservative Republicans, and "all good people" in
between. There are those who would tell you that this bill is a
measure of the Religious Right on a campaign to promote its own
agenda. But, if that agenda seeks to balance the power of
government with the rights of children and families, then I support
that portion of the agenda. This should not be a partisan issue
when all research has clearly shown that the single most important
criteria for predicting a child's success is the family.

And who are our critics? Opposing this bill are an array of
highly paid lobbyists for social worker groups and government
entities wearing expensive suits who claiming to be afraid of law
suits. In fact, they are seeking to avoid accountability for
malicious and intentional acts which is all this bill will hold
them accountable for. They claim to be child advocates. They
weren't sent here by children, and, children did not pay their way
or tell them what to say.

Why would a true child's advocate seek absolute immunity for a
government worker whose malicious or intentionally bad acts bring
harm to a child? Indeed, those who support this bill are truly
child advocates against the malicious or outrageous acts of adults.

My support of the qualified immunity standard in no way implies
a lack of recognition for the difficult and draining job performed
by CPS workers. They are under-trained, under- appreciated, and
under-supported. I believe it is imperative that we begin to
recognize the importance of the work they do and that we support
that work with higher standards, higher pay, greater status. I
believe that a change in the immunity standard will signal
government and the executives of social services agencies that they
must recognize the importance of protection workers, and that they
must improve screening and training of those workers, and, in so
doing raise the level of the standards of care to protect the
parents, the children, and the citizens of the State of California.