69 - Inside Juvenile Dependency Court

Custody cases are meant to protect children — but in juvenile dependency court, the stakes are higher, and the consequences can be irreversible. This isn’t mom vs. dad. It’s the state vs. the parent, with the child caught in the crossfire. Award-winning family law attorney Lauren Johnson-Norris joins forensic psychologist Dana Anderson to reveal what really happens behind closed courtroom doors. From children torn from safe homes without cause, to tragedies like Gabriel Fernandez, whose abuse was reported but ignored, this episode uncovers the silent failures of the child protection system.

We also examine the haunting case of Shane Miller, a father with a violent past who murdered his wife and two daughters — a chilling reminder of what can happen when red flags are missed.
And we ask the harder question: What happens when CPS goes too far? When the effort to protect becomes the reason families are torn apart?

When child protection fails—or overreaches—lives are shattered. Step inside juvenile dependency court with a family law attorney and forensic psychologist who’ve seen it all.

You can connect with Lauren Johnson-Norris at californiacriminaldefender.com. 

Hire a forensic psychologist for your next legal case at www.psychologydr.com.



Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Juvenile Dependency Court
03:04 Understanding Parent Education and Advocacy
06:07 The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Family Dynamics
09:08 Challenges Faced by Families in Dependency Court
11:46 The Role of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
15:10 Systemic Issues in Child Protective Services
17:55 The Need for Comprehensive Support Services
21:05 The Role of Mental Health Professionals in Family Court
26:01 Navigating Mental Health in Family Law
30:55 The Complexities of Family Court
34:17 The Intersection of Domestic Violence and Family Law
38:41 Understanding Firearm Risks in Domestic Situations
42:28 The Importance of Empathy in Legal Work
47:43 Improving Child Protective Services
50:46 Finding Solutions in Family Law



Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, and

(00:22):
today we're stepping into a courtroom most people never see
and many hope they never do, Juvenile dependency court. So
it's not just a custody battle between two parents. This
is the government versus a parent, and the children are
in the middle. In the middle of this battle, you

(00:44):
may recall the case of Gabrielle Fernandez in Los Angeles County,
an example of system failure when they've failed to intervene
or protect a child in time. And that case has
often been referred to in the media as the Boy
in the Cupboard, so due to the horrific abuse that

(01:07):
he endured, such as being forced to sleep bound and
gagged inside a small cabinet. But what about the cases
when the opposite happens, You know, when the government steps
in too soon, or CPS removes a child unnecessarily or
keeps families apart too long. How do we find that balance?

(01:29):
So today joining me is criminal defense attorney Lauren Johnson Norris.
She's a certified family loss specialist, an award winning attorney,
and a legal analyst who has been on court TV,
Fox News and other media outlets, and I wanted to
sit down with her today to ask more questions about

(01:51):
how this differs from divorce or standard custody court and
just what are some of the common reasons that parent
end up independency court. So, Lauren, thank you so much
for joining me today.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Well, it's my pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me.
I do want to clarify I am not a family
law certified family law specialist, but I am a certified
parent educator and that does inform a lot of my work.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
So just quick fix.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
But I'm so glad to be here, and this is
an exciting conversation to have. Our work in this practice
area is not often highlighted, so thanks for having it
with me.

Speaker 1 (02:29):
Yeah, when you say a family educator, tell me a
little bit more about that. Absolutely. So.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
Parent education is a field of its own. We have
teachers who teach children, but teaching parents how to parent
and how to work through difficult issues is something that
I went back and got a certification on through UCLA,
and that program was primarily made up of teachers. But
I knew that the work that I do intersects so

(02:57):
much with parent education. I wanted to be able to
step in and assist every client in learning new skills
and being able to work through difficult problems that their
family face. So it's just something that I did to
better inform my practice. Wow, that's wonderful, and I think
that's rare for an attorney to have that skill set
that's so passionate about actually teaching the parents how to

(03:19):
be a better parent. Well, I went into this work
as a system impacted young person, a young lawyer, meaning
I had a parent that was in a criminal justice system.
I grew up facing many of the issues that the
parents in the juvenile dependency system face, but without intervention.
And that's not to say that I think my outcome

(03:40):
would have been better had the state intervened, but I
recognize that there are similar problems that many families face,
especially working families who already have economic instability and challenges.
So I come into the work with a lot of
empathy for the entire family, and many times you'll see
practitioners in this field to focus on kids, and we

(04:01):
all love and care about kids. They're the next generation.
They are the most vulnerable in the family. They're the
most impacted by all the choices that are made in
the system and in the family in it. But I
know that most kids do return to their parents, and
so knowing that parents have more tools and are in
a better place when that happens is a critical piece

(04:22):
that I saw was missing in my work representing parents.
So I focus on really being not only the parents
advocate in court, but the parents counselor behind the scenes.
And that means working with each family, identifying what the
issues are and where a child Protective Services social worker
might focus on the youth to make sure that they
have everything that they need. I want our clients to

(04:44):
have everything that they need to succeed in parenting and
so that they come out of this system better than
they came into it. And we're able to do that
in a lot of cases, and I don't often see
my clients back in the system.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
Again, Wow, full circle own experience, and were you as
a child ever in juvenile dependency court?

Speaker 2 (05:09):
So I was not, and I will say that you know,
I grew up in a middle class community in a
community that did not have I didn't have a lot
of exposure to CPS, so there weren't the sort of
external risk factors that lower income families might face. I
wasn't a special needs kid, so I didn't have a
lot of contact with extra resources or professionals who are

(05:31):
mandated reporters. I was a good student who flew under
the radar of most teachers. There wasn't a lot of
parental contact with school, so those mandated reporters wouldn't have
been folks who would have been intervening in my life.
And all ways I presented is just a really typical, normal,
high achieving, even child, So I did not have contact

(05:52):
with the dependency system. I'm grateful for that, But at
the same time, there were problems in the family that
could have benefited from some support and some intervention, including
alcoholism by my parents' mental health issues. And when I
look back, I see that my folks sure could have
used more help, but that that wasn't something that I'm

(06:13):
not sure that the government stepping in and providing that
would have had a better outcome. I mean, I'm here
today as a well adjusted person. I'm an attorney, and
I'm able to help other families, And sometimes I see
that the intervention of social workers in this system can
do more harm than good. It can cause significant trauma
in separating kids from their parents. There can be overreach,

(06:35):
and we know that that trauma can be detrimental and
life long. So looking back, I'm really grateful that I
wasn't in that system, but I still am empathetic to
families who face the sort of challenges that mine did.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Grow when I was growing up. It's so relatable. I
grew up in a family of ten and we lived
in poverty, and there was domestic violence, and we were
way out in the woods, so there was no CPS involvement,
and I often contemplated, had they been involved, what that

(07:09):
would have looked like. And who can say, you know
what outcome? I think, you know, what you're talking about
is parents getting education and getting the right type of
intervention to get them back on track. You know. I
sometimes in the cases I've seen, there's a lot of
heavy handedness through CPS, like making a quick judgment or

(07:33):
taking the kids out of a situation. But I don't know.
In my in my career as a psychologist, I've made
a lot of CPS reports or seeing it, seeing a
lot of neglect abuse. I'm not pleased with the outcomes
of how they handle these cases. I think it's a
very problematic agency. But like, how can we do better?

(07:58):
Tell me a little bit more about your involvement. So
I love your passion and how you you know your
role in court? Now, what would you say? Some of
the common reasons are that parents end up in this court.
Common reasons include domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, and poverty.
Mean those are the most common reasons. Sometimes serious child

(08:20):
injury or corporal punishment can result in a referral. But
I appreciate you sharing.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
You know your experience as one of many children in
poverty living it. You know, in kind of the higher
risk situation we see kids when there's poverty or there's
a lot of other state intervention or teachers involved there
tend to be at a higher risk of mandated reporters.
But even you know, child welfare is only about one
hundred years old in our American history. My grandmother told

(08:51):
me that when she was growing up, she was one
of eleven and she had, you know, twin siblings. They
grew up in poverty, and her parents passed away when
she was very little. She was one of the younger
kids and her grandmother raised her. And even back in
the nineteen twenties in New York, they really really meager,
humble beginnings. They used to hide because CPS would come

(09:14):
to the door and knock on the door. The well meaning,
you know, tend to be white, middle class women would
come knock on the door of these poor families. And
my grandmother told me they used to hide, and they
would hide under the bed or hide no, there's no
children here, right, And so there's a history of CPS
sort of intervention in low income families in this country,

(09:39):
you know, what we might call low hanging fruit for
easy to access and unfortunately with facing unusual challenges. So
I kind of grew up knowing that that was an
issue which old projective services hearing that history. But I
also have done a lot of criminal defense work.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
And so I have worked to serve.

Speaker 2 (09:59):
More marginalized communities my entire career. Even though I'm a
private practitioner now, I also handle a caseload of indigent
appeals that are handled all over the state because I
enjoy that work. But I also want to make sure
that every family, regardless of income, is getting absolutely the
best representation and Zalis advocacy. So I kind of bring

(10:21):
that back to what we typically see in juvenile dependency
cases are the cases that intersect some of the issues
that face marginalize or indigent families. But I have to
say any population can face domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health. Like,
let's not pretend that all families can face these challenges,

(10:42):
and they do. They absolutely do. And whether you are
a working class family or a high earning family. Here
in Orange County, the social workers tend to be still
pretty heavy handed. They often get off on the wrong foot,
and it's really a human endeavor. You talked about Russia
to judgment. Taking a small snapshot of a family life

(11:05):
based on a mandated reporter's report, really bringing in an
allegation that's going to be negative doesn't show the full
scope of the family's life. And my job is to
present things either in context or to show that they're wrong,
or to show really who this family is and all
the things that are working, and that's supposed to be
considered in it. It sometimes it isn't. It's just a

(11:26):
tiny little piece. Maybe there's a corporal punishment issue where
a parent can really benefit from additional parenting skills or
training how to move into modern parenting techniques. But the
fact that maybe they left a bruise on a child
which is significant and shouldn't be ignored, could result in
the removal of a child from their parents often can
do more harm than good.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
Yeah, going back to what you said about CPS only
being one hundred years old, it just got me thinking.
My grandma was one of sixteen children. So was their poverty. Yes,
my mom was a family of eight, and there was
poverty in domestic llolence in their home too, and there
was times when CPS and the police came knocking, and

(12:11):
over time they did hide. And you know, my grandma
eventually was sent to a state hospital and the kids
were kind of raising themselves. You know, how did that
work out? You'd say, well, how did that go? Well,
here we are now, you know, as my grandma age,

(12:31):
they took care of her as their mom and like
functioned and survived and like are still together in good
relationships and all of that. And sometimes it's just amazing
the resilience of how they could overcome or the children
took care of their parent, took care of their parent,
and she was in the hospital for state hospital for

(12:52):
a long periods of time, So the government definitely would
have taken over all those kids left in the house.
So you always wonder how it's going to turn out.
So I have a unique perspective being raised in poverty.
And then you know, I work for the courts and
I work with a lot of indigent people, so I'm
very familiar with these types of living conditions and situations

(13:14):
and then things crossing over to criminal court domestic violence,
so some of these cases can get really messy, and
as a psychologist, I have a lot of empathy. I
try to be pretty practical and in meeting with these
parents that are core ordered for evaluations and try to
see where they're coming from and help make a good

(13:38):
decision for the family. So I'm ordered to do the
psychological evaluations and I have court ordered icps for cases
to evaluate each parent, and I do cases in family
law court and of course criminal court. But these cases
can be so complex in assessing recommendations for the parents

(14:01):
and next step in like reunification, what does that look like?
And so there's a lot of factors to look at
that are complicated. I sure are.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
And it's like I said, a matter of human affairs,
which means that we are just people interjecting and coming
up with ideas and solutions. But there is no like,
we can't put this in a computer and put out
an output of what is going to solve the family's
problems because there's so many variables and people are different

(14:35):
they respond differently to different things. So I see cases
tragically on appeal where the case came in maybe the
child was born with a positive toxicology for drugs and
the parent was drug addicted or.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
Have mental health.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Sometimes they have developmental disabilities, iq occupational problems, all kinds
of problems. And you're going to give somebody a case
plan that says you're going to go to parenting classes,
and you're going to drug test, and you're going to
do X, Y and C. But the fundamental issues may
remain survival for that person. And if we don't address

(15:11):
those issues, how is that parent going to reunify with
their child. We just don't live in a society where
we have a lot of social support for people who
are the most vulnerable and have the most challenges we don't.
We live in an individualistic society and we expect everyone
to write above their circumstances, and in many cases that's
just too hard for the folks that are facing that,

(15:34):
and then they have children and it only gets harder.
And so we're really looking at some of the most
challenging issues that could face families and parents and kids
that exist. I think, you know, on the face of
the in a fully developed, modern country where theoretically we
have everything available to us, but these problems, yeah, they're

(15:55):
from generation to generation. You know, there's a lot of
inequity that's been passed on from generation to generation and
helping people get on their feet in such an individualistic society,
that's sort of the expectation of the court and of CPS.
And unless you wrap people around in so many services
and so much support, it's really hard to see how

(16:15):
they will succeed in these systems. And we just don't
finance for that, Like we don't budget as a society
for people who need so much support. It costs money
and when you talk to the taxpayers, nobody wants, you know,
to pay an extra dime. But the consequence of that
is seeing this kind of heartache and tragedy, I mean
tragedy to children, and it's generational. And part of why

(16:36):
I do this work is to help break those cycles
where we can. I know I can't do it in
so many cases, but anywhere I can, where we can
break a cycle of substance abuse, or of untreated mental health,
or of poverty, I want to jump in and help
do that because that's really the future. It's the future
of our communities, and it's the future for all these kids.

Speaker 1 (16:58):
One of the most common things that I see for
referrals that are sent my ways, there's substance use seems
to be one of the top factors. So that's across
settings for my criminal evaluations too. So substance use is
a really big problem. And if you are indigent, you're poor,

(17:19):
you're live in your car, you don't have any money,
you don't have a job, you don't have a family,
you don't have family support. There are limited programs are programs,
but substance use is what I see every day, almost
all day. It being a chronic, pervasive problem, and what

(17:39):
is the solution, Like budgets are limited for doing court
ordered treatment, and it's time limited. I know, you're in
a different county, so different counties vary between what they allow.
My county, Shasta County. A lot of times they get
six months, they can extend that for another six months,
so they have so long to comply with the core

(17:59):
or to get treatment in order to reunify with their children.

Speaker 2 (18:04):
So, you know, in Orange County we continue to suffer
from the same problems. It's a statewide problem, but I
also think it's a national problem because we just absolutely
do not budget at the state or federal level to
support families. This country has failed to do that. They
failed to do it at the inception from childcare. We
don't have childcare that's you know, publicly funded and available.

(18:27):
We don't even have publicly funded health in this country
like other countries that do support families and children. That
should be a given. And not to get political about it,
but you know, everything is political if we don't have
the money, because we don't tax billionaires, and so as
long as some folks get a break, other folks are
not going to get the resources allocated in a society

(18:52):
to meet all of those needs. And that's just sort
of part of living in a society is that everybody
has to chip in. In an other country trees, especially
some European countries, they might be smaller population, but the
amount of money that's budgeted to meet the needs of
kids and families is really proportionate and needed. And you
see really great success rates for people thriving in lower

(19:15):
rates of mental health and substance abuse, and you approach
it as a public health issue, as a social issue.
In Orange County, we just don't have any money for it.
The voters in California voted just recently to pass Prop.
Thirty six, which radically changed the way that we deal with,
for example, substance abuse as well as other crimes like theft.

(19:35):
But it's supposed to create a court where there's mandated
substance abuse treatment programs, and there's no money for that.
So there's no treatment programs, right, So where the voters
voted to create this opportunity to mandate treatment, if you
don't have like a writer with it that has money
that is budgeted for that, then you just end up

(19:56):
with punitive consequences. And when it comes to child protective services,
feel we are fortunate. Our bench will grant orders for
payment for various things here and there where parents need it.
I feel that we're fortunate that most of the services
our clients participated in are paid for by the county
or this state. But like in other counties, parents are

(20:17):
required to pay for all of their services. It just
varies based on the county. And if you have somebody
who doesn't have a car, they may have access to
a bus pass, but they're supposed to pay for their therapy,
their substance abuse treatment, their parenting classes, potentially a child
abusers class or domestic violence class.

Speaker 1 (20:34):
Well, that's just not going to happen.

Speaker 2 (20:36):
There's just no that person that can't afford to do that.
So it becomes a constitutional issue. Can you take away
somebody's child and then require them to pay for all
of these things the government requires. I think that's a
constitutional problem. We know that it's much more cost effective
to provide that care as prevention and providing parenting is
prevention to do that with a child in home. But again,

(20:58):
you know, it's just an approach to whether we shoul
be punitive to people or we should be supportive of families.
I'm always going to come down on the side of
supporting them. So Orange County doesn't pay for some of
these co ordered out patient services like substance abuse treatment.
So what happens is they get a referral and the
majority of it is county paid. But for example, if
a parent has private insurance, they'll ask them to use

(21:21):
that first right. And that's reasonable, I understand, but in
some counties, you know, I practice in all of counties
in southern California, other counties, the parents are expected to pay,
and so then you come you know, if somebody can't pay,
you can run into real problems. So I've seen that
in LA in some cases where parents are expected to
pay for these services and it's just not going to happen.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
That's so unequitable. And I've seen cases across state lines
and different jurisdictions, and even now I'm so surprised of
how different it is from where you live. And so
I find it shocking because I've had some people contact
me and nobody, no parent has been evaluated by a psychologist,
and they're taking away the kids, and so explain the process,

(22:05):
and I go, I'm sorry, how are we here? And
they say the court has never they're not set up
in a way to have a psychological evaluation, and I
say what, but why that county and these other counties
will pay for that service for me? And so that
parent and this is a real scenario of this mom

(22:27):
just called me, and so now it is a financial issue,
so she to get that evaluation or that judge in
that case to approve the fee to pay, which then
I find so it can definitely rest into a judge's
hands if they're gonna carry that expense. That outcome is

(22:51):
tragic though, because I've just found it shocking how it
varies between between cities and states. And then I have
a contract locally where I'm ordered by the court to
do evals to do from CPS or parents, and so
they don't have to pay for it. That procedure, that
mechanism should be in place for other counties. They should

(23:14):
have a right to see a psychologist or mental health
professional clinician to make some recommendations for treatment. And then
where I'm at the treatment recommendations I make, they'll pay
for it.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Well, and I think about it, that's the court's expert.
So when you're appointed and paid, you're the courts expert.
You're there to provide a neutral, sort of objective evaluation
of what's going on to assist the court in fashioning
services to help people. But I will say that sometimes
we also see, unfortunately CPS and their attorneys weaponize mental

(23:47):
health professionals or attempt to try to get experts. They
view experts as a way not just to have a
second set of eyes on the parent, but county contracted
save mental health providers with an expectation of course, they're
going to be mandated reporters. I mean all therapists are,
but that they are going to report the bad as
well as the good. And so that means that the

(24:07):
parent is not making enough progress or doesn't have enough insight,
that's the sort of language that we hear, that they'll
report that, and really it's almost serving as an investigative
function instead of just a therapeutic function. I can't tell
you how many clients I've seen who have been referred
to a county contracted mental health professional who is in training,

(24:31):
right is a training as a student who is training,
who reports that the client just doesn't get it. I
know that therapists are supposed to be advocates right for
their clients and really helping their clients. And when I
see that kind of thing, you know I'm going to
have to bring that professional in and cross examine them
because I'm trying to understand.

Speaker 1 (24:50):
What the objective is here. I thought the objective was
to treat and to guide and assist this parent and
not use them as an investigative arm of CEP. So
we see that.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
Sometimes it takes an advocate who a lawyer who is
aware that that's happening, and a strong advocate to call
that out when it's happening. But sometimes it is. But
I know you're not in that role. You're interval assisting
the court as an objective evaluator, and wherever that can happen,
I think that that is really helpful. You know, we're
not therapists, we're not psychologists, and we're not experts on

(25:24):
mental health. That we may learn a lot along the way.
You're in the best position to share what folks really need.

Speaker 1 (25:32):
Yeah, and I do private evaluations, so where people can
consult with me and decide whether a psychical is even
necessary in family court or CPS court or wherever they're at.
I can say I advise someone recently, I said you
do not need a psycho VOWL and do not share
this information. People can book a consult with me for that,
and sometimes their mental health is being questioned or they've

(25:55):
said something to CPS. Here's what happens. A lot of
times CPS comes, mom says something about her meds and
then it somehow gets put in a report. You know,
she's on psychiatric meds and it needs to be ordered
to take your meds or she's not taking her meds.
I've had this happen like multiple times, and the med

(26:15):
is like hormones or birth control or something like totally
misstated in the report inaccurate. Now they're like ordered to
have some psychological evaluation or assume they're under the influence
when they're not something else. But yeah, sometimes sometimes parents
are conflicted on like what they want to share with CPS.

(26:38):
It's kind of like talking to the police and I
will be used against you. So you just told them
something that you can't take back. It went into a report,
and now your mental health is being questioned, like in
I talked to parents sometimes, so it's not always I
do want to help people protect their mental health. Just

(26:58):
because you're depressed or have anxiety or taking meds, like,
that's not always something that needs to be shared with
the court, like, if it doesn't affect your ability to
parent things like that. A lot of times on retigious cases,
one other parent is making accusations and making something up,
so the other parent is responding with information about their

(27:19):
mental health, and I'm like, hold on, do you really
want your entire mental health file opened up in court? Well?
Don't you see that?

Speaker 2 (27:27):
In especially in domestic violence. But there's cases of domestic
violence where often the male partner will weaponize mental health
as a way to say she's crazy. You know, this
behavior or whatever is because she's mentally ill, and really
scandalize mental health, which we all have mental health, right,

(27:49):
it's a concept. We all have mental health, mental illness,
a diagnosis, those are different things. But I don't know,
I see that, and I think that's really terrible because
we all should want everybody to be mentally functioning in
a healthy way, not weaponizing it against them. In a case,
it's pretty insidious to weaponize mental health, and just by

(28:12):
making a statement to the court about someone's mental health
doesn't make it true and then it has to be investigated.
But the allegations, making those allegations like it has cost
people their children just by making these statements. By the
time they get to me, I'm helping determine whether these

(28:35):
you know the validity of some of these claims or
I'll say there is no mental illness, there is no
recommendation for meds. These are just statements they made. You know,
there's some real pathological parents, like certain personality disorders are
really making up things that aren't true to not pay
child support, toy. It's very very hurtful, very very damaging,

(29:02):
and it's it's just heartbreaking. So I meet a lot
of these parents and try to help them navigate through
the system, and it's really hard. Once you get in,
you kind of get tangled up and you got to
find your way out. And I've been in family in
law court before as a single mom with kids, and
I went through the process and it's, oh, it's a

(29:26):
terrible place to share to end up in family or
I think my first year, I think we were fifty
plus filings where I had to appear in court that
many times during the first year. So it can be
just a way to really tie up the other person's
time so they can't live their life. Or really it's

(29:49):
so it can be so harmful, so pathological, you know
when you want to control the other parent. And I
was even you know, my ex us stalking to be
able to locate me because I had to be in
family court and you could make up allegations and then
you spend the next few years. You know, I'm covering that.

Speaker 1 (30:11):
So I'm very empathetic of you know, anyone can end
up in family court. And yeah, luckily my kids are
grown and I don't have that anymore. But like, I
definitely love helping parents through the system and getting them
connected to resources and helping them navigate their way out.

(30:36):
I have a lot of good outcomes. I'm able to
work with attorneys on both sides or help negotiate or
make recommendations for the court. So I do have a
lot of successful outcomes, and that's why I'm here. I'm
here to help people. So if you do find yourself
in family log court, I'm here for you. It's awesome.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
I mean, I do have a lot of clients who
look cross over with family law cases. So they come
into juvenile dependency court because someone made a referral.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Out of a family they had a family law case.

Speaker 2 (31:08):
They went to a mediator or a psychologist or somewhere
along the line, I got referred and it ended up
in dependency. And I always historically thought that, you know,
family law is voluntary. Where dependency is not right family law,
a parent files a petition, you know, against the other parent,
and you can you can choose to be in it

(31:29):
or you can choose to be out it. Where dependency
it's the government, right, it's always going to be the
government against the parents. And now the longer I do this,
the more I'm like, I don't know how voluntary this
is for so many folks because they're being dragged in
by the other partner, right or ex partner. They're being
dragged into this court where someone is decided in this dynamic,

(31:52):
it could be one of them or both who have
decided to avail themselves of courts to solve their problems.
And we know when you go to court to solve
your problems, like if you can try to solve your
problems without a court, you should always try to solve
your problem without a court, Otherwise you're going to have
somebody else deciding for you how to raise your children,
all of your financial what works for you, and a

(32:13):
lot of times nobody's happy. So I've realized over time
that a lot of the families that end up independency
from family law are going to end up right back
into family law when they're done, because this is just
a continuation either of some kind of abusive thing going
on by one of the parents or just a dysfunction
between both of them. They got so bad now that

(32:35):
kids are harmed and they're independency because the family law
board didn't know how to stop that, how to protect
the kids. And somehow we're going to protect the kids
in the dependency court and make that better. And when
they get there, I don't know that our court can
do much of a better job if the people won't
stop right, if they won't stop parentally alienation, if they
won't stop maligning the other parent all the time. These

(33:00):
cases are horrible, and outside the practitioners don't like doing
them in our court, but we are stuck doing them
because that's where people end up. And I look at
the job as just trying to figure out how to
advise them to find their sanity in the situation. But
unless the other partners willing to do the same, we'll
probably stuck together.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Yeah, what you were saying about being a family court.
It does feel very unvoluntary when you were in it.
If someone files against you and you have to fear,
and it can be like quasi criminal like you know,
I know the games that are played, you know, making
days and times changing it you don't appear, and all

(33:44):
those things happen to me, like it definitely crosses over
to criminal In domestic violence cases, there's somehow these family
law cases start. Somebody says they're going to file a
restraining order, and then that can initiate a family law case,
now criminal case, now criminal charges and DV and then
you have a huge fight with multiple things going, a

(34:06):
criminal case going, you know, just all these things and
some tragic cases one of my own hometown where you
know someone there's domestic violence, they have kids, they go
to follow a protection order and they come back home.
Sandy Miller lived in my town, went to my women's

(34:26):
refuge shelter to stay with their kids and their dog,
and she decided she'd, you know, maybe she would return home,
and that night her husband shot her and her two kids,
and then he went on a national manhunt that was
hiding for a year. They eventually found him deceased in

(34:47):
the woods, but it was a it was a domestic
violence case. That was she hadn't even filed anything yet,
it was going to make its way to family court.
He was a marijuana dialer, Like he was into criminal stuff.
He didn't want it to see the light of day.
He ended up murdering her. It became a national It

(35:09):
made national news over time because they were looking for him,
But it actually ended up bringing awareness of like, how
are we responding to these people who are seeking help
and how can we do better for her? It was
Sandy Miller and making the system a better place where
she could have feeled more comfortable staying in the shelter
or assisting with her dog, or having it not just

(35:33):
a one room thing with it actually prompted millions of
dollars of being poured into our local shelter, being expanded
and having much more robust services. Because it's complicated of
why she had a right to return home that night
to her own home where she lives, and she just did.

(35:56):
She was doing nothing wrong, and so it's so important
what we do in recognizing when there are very dangerous situations,
because a lot of the cases you encounter or I encounter,
there are restraining orders, there are criminal charges. Sexual misconduct
is also happening in these cases or there's allegations of that.

(36:17):
So all these things are happening. So it's a very
volatile time for everyone involved. I mean, someone's facing potential
prison time, right, it's dangerous. So making decisions about are
the kids safe for unsupervised visitation, supervised visitation, who is supervising,
how are they getting there, who's the oversight? You know,

(36:38):
when it's not safe for kids to be with that
parent though, I make recommendations for supervised exchanges or visits
and these highly lethal situations. And there's other cases where
parents have threatened filing a restraining order or something, and

(36:58):
then before it even is filed, just the threat of it,
something happens. So it's like, how do we assess? You know,
maybe you can share a story that sticks sticks out
to you, you know, where you've been able to intervene
or provide a different outcome. Well, I have to say
those that's such a horrific and tragic and scary story

(37:24):
the woman in your community, and I read that, you know,
one of the really significant red flags was not that
her husband and the father was a survivalist, but that
you really had an arsenal. I mean, he had a
bunker with serious firearms. He had a prior conviction for

(37:44):
unlawful possession of the machine gun, and I think that
those are really significant red flags, not just for mental
health that they are, but for violence, because it's unnecessary
in our day to day life to have those have
a machine gun, Like there's not a lawful purpose to
have a machine gun. And if somebody perceives the world

(38:06):
as out to get them that they need a machine gun,
you know, there's some kind of paranoia going on. There's
some kind of mental issue going on. But also, of
course we know that where there are firearms and homes,
the risk of violence is significantly increased, especially to the
family members in that home. So it's absolutely scary to
think what was she thinking when she was trying to

(38:29):
make an effort to keep her family safe, knowing that
he had an arsenal at his supply at any time
to you know, that could put that family in danger.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
There were no good solutions. She did have a right
to come home and be safe, and the horrendous acts
that he committed, you know, just absolutely just terrible, terrible, terrible,
And I do see cases where women are just afraid.
I always want to know about firearms in the house,
not you know, not because were constitutionally entitled to have them,

(39:03):
of course, but are they safely maintained in how many
and what is the purpose? All of those questions I
think are relevant. I try to figure that out, what
my clients have, what their spouses have, because I want
to understand the worldview and I want to understand the
perceptions of the people living in the home as it
comes to safety. It reminds me of a case I

(39:23):
had a client who himself kept firearms and a fair
number of them and ultimately was criminally charged. And there
was a dependency case when he fell being very intoxicated,
turned the firearm on his family and threatened his family
and in a really apparent mental health crisis and also

(39:45):
under the influence of alcohol, and rightfully, you know, a
neighbor called and he was arrested and ultimately with the
intervention in that case, CPS got involved and he was
out of the home and the kids were with their mom.
But ultimately took time, but he went through very significant
and rigorous alcohol treatment as well as domestic violence and

(40:08):
anger management and all the other types of classes that
are available, but we ultimately in the criminal matter exchanged
him giving up and taking a gun violence restraining order
where he lost the ability to have his firearms for
a significant period of time while the district attorney decided
not to criminally file that charge, to file that case
in exchange for that And that was hard for that

(40:31):
individual because that person was very committed to his right
to have firearms, and I understand that. But at the
end of the day, this is your family and your future,
and I think he made the right decision and removing
that risk factor so that he could reunify with his family,
and he did, and he did so successfully. He needed
mental health treatment and needed to address his substance abuse,
and the whole family needed his wife as well, needed

(40:54):
support and treatment to empower her and to make sure
that she felt safe and was safe in the home.
So I think that it's a success. But you know,
every family is different. You have to look at sort
of the circumstances that face every family. It could be firearms,
or could be serious drug addiction. You know that endangers
kids and the family. A domestic violence is probably, like

(41:14):
you said, one of the most pervasive things that we see,
and it really comes down to mental health and healthy
communication and eliminating all of these risk factors so that
families can function in a healthy way. And sobriety is
a big piece of that a lot of the time too.
So you know, that's what I focus on in cases,
is trying to help families repair, improve their situation, but

(41:39):
in a safe way, because we never want somebody to,
you know, just go home and see them come up again,
or worse, somebody dies, somebody is killed as a result
of the danger in the home. So I'm proud of
doing that work and being able to help. It's not
something that a lot of people do or brag about,
but I know, you know, families are most of the

(42:01):
time going to reunify one way or the other. Even
if the case closes and it's extra legal, they just
get back together with no one knowing. But I'd rather
do that in a way that is really safe for
everyone involved.

Speaker 1 (42:13):
A What a fresh perspective to hear from an attorney. Yeah,
I'm thankful for the work you do.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
Thank you, thank you.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
I don't know what it is about me why I
don't shy away from what is the most hard it
just seems the most important to me. That's how I feel,
because when we were going to have this conversation, I thought,
nobody wants to do these types of evaluations, so psychologists
like me. My colleague gets funny, he said he will

(42:41):
not do these at all. Honestly, there's not too many
people I know that do, just because of the tigious nature.
But I don't shy away from them either, and I
want to help. I do feel that the most important.
I would want to intervene in a homicide or suicide
or something so tragic like and I have and I do,
and there's I have many success cases. I understand the

(43:02):
value and someone has to do it, and so I'm
actually happy to help. Yeah, any case really that comes
my way. There's nothing, There's nothing I don't think I
could handle. I one of the most tragic and satis
cases that will haunt me and haunts everyone, the Gabrielle Fernandez.

(43:25):
You know, just a system failure of a child being
neglected and not an intervention for many years and he
end up dying. And have we learned from that? Like?
Have we created a better system? Now? How did we
fail him? Such a tragedy and I believe in that
case there were CPS workers who checked boxes that they

(43:48):
were going to the house, but in fact they were not,
And that was part of the problem that you know,
nobody was checking up on this kid and.

Speaker 2 (43:57):
They lied about it. I have to share this fact
with you, and I was looking at the case again
before we met. Did you know that the mother of
that child who was tragically murdered by his mother and
her partner, do you know that when she started using
methamphetamines when she was eight years old?

Speaker 1 (44:14):
His mother his mother, she.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Started using methamphetamine at eight years old and using drugs
and alcohol like by the time she was like ten
years old. She was like an addict.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
She was severely abused and neglected as a child.

Speaker 2 (44:35):
And I'm making no excuses, trust me, I'm not making
any excuses.

Speaker 1 (44:39):
But when I hear a fact like that, I'm like, WHOA.
First of all, what was it that home like? And
then like, what was the home like that he was in?
He was not raised by that parent the majority of
his life. She abandoned him at the hospital, I think,
and then she might have come back at some point
in his life, but she was really not in it.

(45:00):
The child's life. The majority he was raised by an
uncle and his uncle's partner, and then his grandparents, I
think the grandparents who raised the mother, and then there
were many calls that were made by family members when
he ultimately.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
Was placed with his mother. But he was not placed
with his mother until, you know, for I think a
year maybe a year before he was tragically murdered by
her and her partner. So most of his life he
did not reside with her. And I just think that
we all benefit from knowing more about her life. Was like,
where was dad? Dad was not in the picture at all?

(45:37):
What was the experiences he had in other homes? Because
I don't think we can just look at it in
a vacuum. I think she was still abusing drugs well
into parenting him, if you would call that parenting him.
She was addicted to opioids by the time that he
was living with her and had major mental health issues
as well. So I don't know how he got placed

(45:58):
with her. I didn't catch that part of it, but
there were already so many risk factors and red flags
and problems, and the fact that CPS was charged with
coming out to check on that child, to all those
reports and apparently did not, but you know, doctored reports
due to being not having enough time or whatever were

(46:18):
the constraints of that job. Lied and committed perjury and
then that child was tragically murdered in his own home. Yeah,
obviously tremendous failure all around.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
Horrific, just absolutely horrific.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
Should never happen to any child, and inexcusable. The people
ended up not getting criminally charged for child The social
workers not ended up. I think they were charged and
it was dismissed. They were not found unto committed a
child endangerment because I don't know the court said that
their duty to report did not rise to a criminal charge.

(46:54):
But I think we all understand that like might as.

Speaker 1 (46:58):
Well have been because of the child dies on your watch.
Your only job is to keep kids safe. Why are
you there? Right?

Speaker 2 (47:06):
Like, what's the point?

Speaker 1 (47:07):
You know? Why are we paying your salary? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (47:10):
Get out of this business.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Right, Yeah, it's certainly people i've met like you should
go now that you're not. Yeah, that's fit for you,
you know, if you if I ever lost my empathy
or just didn't, I should just go away. Why did
you get into this career? Phil so just make sure
you know your why. For anyone that's listening should know
your why. Like I know my wife and I do it.

(47:33):
I do do my why. So like I, you know,
I like to intervene in help. So I would just
encourage anyone like such an important role. So how can
we do better? I know you talked about finances, you know, CPS,
so that we need to have more funding, a better response,

(47:53):
like our services just so thin. It seems like I've
done some cases more recently in LA and they were
like the opposite of what we just discussed. It was
a heavy hand. They just took the kid and I
was like, what's going on here? Like what?

Speaker 2 (48:10):
But LA is quick to return, so parents will do
the services and they'll get their kids back. They're not micromanaged.
We're in a more affluent county like Orange County.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
The social workers are.

Speaker 2 (48:21):
It's a culture that's more micromanaging of attitudes and you know,
all of these sort of subjective criteria that you can't
really put your finger on. But maybe they flunked an
you know, an attitude test with a social worker and
they'll hold them against them.

Speaker 1 (48:34):
We're in LA.

Speaker 2 (48:36):
I don't think they have the resources to worry about
those kinds of things. They've got so many more cases.
And if parents do their services, they get their kids
back pretty much. I mean, that's the way that it
should work. I think if the government's going to get involved,
the government should get involved to the bare minimum, right,
making sure kids are safe, providing the resources they're required
to provide by law, and get out of there. But

(48:58):
if people, you know, parents have to be nice to
the social worker to be good parents, right, they don't
have to get along with everyone to be loving in
safe parents. And so I would just cause like practitioners
who go into that field is don't take things personally.
If the people don't like you, why would they want
you in their family? Right telling them what to do,

(49:18):
that's just human nature, not going to necessarily be nice
about it. But if they do what they're supposed to do,
the question is as a child safe, not did you
make a new friend? So I think that if they're
going to get involved, do as much as required without overreach,
without getting offended, and with the attitude that ultimately eider
you picked a really difficult.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
Job to help people who a lot of times don't want.

Speaker 2 (49:42):
Your help, right, that's the job as a social worker,
and that's like, but nobody's making you do that, right,
That's a job that you chose to do, and if
you can't handle doing that, then that's not a good
fit for you. There are a lot of other ways
to be a social worker instead of in child welfare.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
Yeah, maybe they need a psyche valve which to see
if they're qualified for the job, you know, screening employees
like is this a good fit for you? It's a
very important job. But I'm so glad to have connected
with you and met you, and I'm thankful to know
there's wonderful attorneys out there that are passionate, they're doing
great things. They're very helpful, solution oriented, like that's what

(50:22):
we need more of, and kind of a breath of
fresh air just talking to you. Don't always find that
with a lot of attorneys, and there's a lot of
negativity kind of in this field about this adversarial process.
So I appreciate the conversation and the work that you do.
And where can people find you and hire you if

(50:43):
they need your services?

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Lauren, Well, thank you so much for the chance to
spend time with you today. It's been terrific. You can
find me at Cpslawgroup dot com or Johnson Criminal Law
Group and that's California Criminaldefender dot com. Two sites were
located in Revine, and I practice all over southern California.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Wonderful. Well, thank you so much Lauren for your time
today and I hope to have another conversation with you soon.

Speaker 2 (51:13):
Thanks so much.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Thank you for listening to Killer Psychologist. To watch full
video episodes or if you want to interact with me,
you can find Killer Psychologists on YouTube. You can also
get notified of new episodes by signing up in my
stand store.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
Now.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
If you want to work with me, you can book
a console. My website is psychologydoctor dot com. That's psychologydr
dot com.