New Page 1

1. COURTESY HOME VISITS

As local programs continue to receive requests from programs in other states to make courtesy home visits. National CASA has given their answers to some frequency asked questions below. As you know, there remain issues about the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and its impact on our CASA advocacy. There are sometimes misunderstandings about the Compact and several areas of practice without clear answers.

1) Jurisdiction:

Q: Does a court in a receiving state have the authority to authorize a volunteer to make a courtesy visit?

A: Probably not. The legal proceeding is not in the receiving state, and the Compact leaves "jurisdiction" with the sending agency.

Q: Does the court in the sending state have the authority to authorize a volunteer to make a
courtesy visit?

A: There is no authority on this, but it would be a risky approach, because the process could
circumvent the provisions of the Compact. One of the risks is that the report of the "courtesy
visit" would be used as a surrogate for (or incorporated into) a home study. This also raises
the possibility that the activity would violate state laws or regulations on the practice of social
work and the licensing of home study providers.

2) Potential liability:

Q: What are the liability risks when volunteers make courtesy visits?

A: If there is no valid court appointment, there is no judicial immunity, and activities undertaken
without such an appointment may be outside the scope of liability insurance policies.

3) Confidentiality:

Q: Is a program in a sending state authorized to release case information to a program in a
receiving state?

A: Because the program in the receiving state program does not have any particular status in
the proceedings, it may be a violation of confidentiality rules to release information to them.

4) Good practice consistent with our mission:

Q: When a case becomes an interstate case, how does the original volunteer continue to
effectively advocate for the child?

A: The volunteer can continue aggressively advocate for the child. National CASA materials
identify 6 advocacy strategies which do not raise the jurisdictional and liability issues
mentioned above.

Q: Could the CASA program in the receiving state enter into an agreement to investigate and
provide information to assist in the determination of whether the placement is in the child's
interests?

A: Because the process is an agency process, the contract would have to be with either the
sending or receiving state agency. Especially if the information were for the purpose of
informing the agency's decision, this practice would undermine the volunteer's position as an
independent advocate.

The National CASA Association does not encourage nor endorse programs accepting interstate referrals from the court or other CASA programs. We do encourage appropriate advocacy by the volunteer assigned in the sending state if it does not raise jurisdictional and liability issues.

Many state organizations and local programs have policies or standards which prohibit their volunteers from making courtesy visits. It may be helpful to know that some states are prohibited from conducting courtesy home visits and to ask that anyone making a request for a courtesy visit be understanding and respectful of any decision not to fulfill the request.

For those of you who have not seen the February edition of the California Bar Journal please follow the link below to read Turning Around the Tragedy of Foster Care:

CA Bar Journal Article

3. California CASA's Tribal Initiative

The National CASA Association (NCASA) started the Tribal Court CASA Project in 1994 to assist in the development and enhancement of CASA programs to provide volunteer advocacy for abused and neglected Native American children. The goal of the Tribal Court CASA Project is to increase the number of Indian children who are receiving culturally sensitive representation through indigenous CASA programs in Tribal Court proceedings. In most cases, this means helping county CASA programs develop the relationships and tools necessary to recruit Native American volunteers and properly train non-Native volunteers to provide high-quality advocacy on behalf of Native children and youth.

In California, tribal CASA programs tend to overlap with other small, rural CASA programs. In many cases, both programs struggle to get the number of volunteers and children served to an efficient level of service, and also have a difficult time finding and funding the personnel needed to strengthen their programs. This can quickly lead to a sense of competition between tribal and county CASA programs, exacerbating any cultural tensions that may exist between them.

Any plan to promote collaboration between county and tribal programs must first help to strengthen both programs so that they are not stuck in crisis management and have the mental and physical resources necessary to work together.

In the past year, CalCASA has worked with the National CASA Association (NCASAA) to help assess and select programs for participation. The six participating programs in this program are as follows:

In California new tribal courts are being established across the state. In our work we will need to understand the relationship between Tribal courts and state courts.

It is our hope that the lessons learned in this project will benefit all Indian children involved in dependency proceedings in California. We will continue to share lessons learned, tools that are developed and resources that can be helpful to you in your work as you advocate for Indian children.

We anticipate that the issues and strategies for serving Indian children in urban settings will pose a different set of challenges. It is our hope that after the completion of the second year of this project we will be able to work with you to determine what additional information and tools you will need to ensure that Indian children in urban settings are getting the most effective advocacy we can provide.

Christine Williams, a member of the Yurok Tribe of Northern California, received her law degree and Indian Law Certificate from Arizona State University College of Law in 2000 after completing her undergraduate studies at UCLA in 1996. Ms. Williams served the State of California for over 2 years as the lead attorney for the Indian Child Welfare Act Initiative at the Judicial Council of California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. In private practice Ms. Williams has had the opportunity to represent tribes in a variety of areas of Indian Law including: Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) issues, cultural resources protection, housing, gaming, California legislation, civil litigation, and the development and review of tribal codes and resolutions. Presently, Ms. Williams has returned to private practice focusing on Indian Law and is also a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Ethnic Studies Department at Mills College teaching a variety of courses pertaining to American Indian Studies. In November of 2007, she was appointed Acting Presiding Judge of the Yurok Tribe's Supreme Court.

CalCASA looks forward to working with Christine who brings the knowledge and experience needed to move ahead in the implementation of CalCASA’s Tribal initiative.



IN THIS EDITION: 1. Courtesy Home Visits 2. California Bar Journal 3. California CASA's Tribal Initiative 4. CalCASA Welcomes Christine Williams J.D.			1. COURTESY HOME VISITS As local programs continue to receive requests from programs in other states to make courtesy home visits. National CASA has given their answers to some frequency asked questions below. As you know, there remain issues about the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and its impact on our CASA advocacy. There are sometimes misunderstandings about the Compact and several areas of practice without clear answers. 1) Jurisdiction: Q: Does a court in a receiving state have the authority to authorize a volunteer to make a courtesy visit? A: Probably not. The legal proceeding is not in the receiving state, and the Compact leaves "jurisdiction" with the sending agency. Q: Does the court in the sending state have the authority to authorize a volunteer to make a courtesy visit? A: There is no authority on this, but it would be a risky approach, because the process could circumvent the provisions of the Compact. One of the risks is that the report of the "courtesy visit" would be used as a surrogate for (or incorporated into) a home study. This also raises the possibility that the activity would violate state laws or regulations on the practice of social work and the licensing of home study providers. 2) Potential liability: Q: What are the liability risks when volunteers make courtesy visits? A: If there is no valid court appointment, there is no judicial immunity, and activities undertaken without such an appointment may be outside the scope of liability insurance policies. 3) Confidentiality: Q: Is a program in a sending state authorized to release case information to a program in a receiving state? A: Because the program in the receiving state program does not have any particular status in the proceedings, it may be a violation of confidentiality rules to release information to them. 4) Good practice consistent with our mission: Q: When a case becomes an interstate case, how does the original volunteer continue to effectively advocate for the child? A: The volunteer can continue aggressively advocate for the child. National CASA materials identify 6 advocacy strategies which do not raise the jurisdictional and liability issues mentioned above. Q: Could the CASA program in the receiving state enter into an agreement to investigate and provide information to assist in the determination of whether the placement is in the child's interests? A: Because the process is an agency process, the contract would have to be with either the sending or receiving state agency. Especially if the information were for the purpose of informing the agency's decision, this practice would undermine the volunteer's position as an independent advocate. The National CASA Association does not encourage nor endorse programs accepting interstate referrals from the court or other CASA programs. We do encourage appropriate advocacy by the volunteer assigned in the sending state if it does not raise jurisdictional and liability issues. Many state organizations and local programs have policies or standards which prohibit their volunteers from making courtesy visits. It may be helpful to know that some states are prohibited from conducting courtesy home visits and to ask that anyone making a request for a courtesy visit be understanding and respectful of any decision not to fulfill the request. 2. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL *For those of you who have not seen the February edition of the California Bar Journal please follow the link below to read Turning Around the Tragedy of Foster Care:* CA Bar Journal Article 3. California CASA's Tribal Initiative The National CASA Association (NCASA) started the Tribal Court CASA Project in 1994 to assist in the development and enhancement of CASA programs to provide volunteer advocacy for abused and neglected Native American children. The goal of the Tribal Court CASA Project is to increase the number of Indian children who are receiving culturally sensitive representation through indigenous CASA programs in Tribal Court proceedings. In most cases, this means helping county CASA programs develop the relationships and tools necessary to recruit Native American volunteers and properly train non-Native volunteers to provide high-quality advocacy on behalf of Native children and youth. In California, tribal CASA programs tend to overlap with other small, rural CASA programs. In many cases, both programs struggle to get the number of volunteers and children served to an efficient level of service, and also have a difficult time finding and funding the personnel needed to strengthen their programs. This can quickly lead to a sense of competition between tribal and county CASA programs, exacerbating any cultural tensions that may exist between them. Any plan to promote collaboration between county and tribal programs must first help to strengthen both programs so that they are not stuck in crisis management and have the mental and physical resources necessary to work together. In the past year, CalCASA has worked with the National CASA Association (NCASAA) to help assess and select programs for participation. The six participating programs in this program are as follows: Tribal: Yurok, Hoopa, and Karuk County: Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Riverside. In California new tribal courts are being established across the state. In our work we will need to understand the relationship between Tribal courts and state courts. It is our hope that the lessons learned in this project will benefit all Indian children involved in dependency proceedings in California. We will continue to share lessons learned, tools that are developed and resources that can be helpful to you in your work as you advocate for Indian children. We anticipate that the issues and strategies for serving Indian children in urban settings will pose a different set of challenges. It is our hope that after the completion of the second year of this project we will be able to work with you to determine what additional information and tools you will need to ensure that Indian children in urban settings are getting the most effective advocacy we can provide. 4. CALCASA Welcomes Christine Williams J.D. Christine Williams, a member of the Yurok Tribe of Northern California, received her law degree and Indian Law Certificate from Arizona State University College of Law in 2000 after completing her undergraduate studies at UCLA in 1996. Ms. Williams served the State of California for over 2 years as the lead attorney for the Indian Child Welfare Act Initiative at the Judicial Council of California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. In private practice Ms. Williams has had the opportunity to represent tribes in a variety of areas of Indian Law including: Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) issues, cultural resources protection, housing, gaming, California legislation, civil litigation, and the development and review of tribal codes and resolutions. Presently, Ms. Williams has returned to private practice focusing on Indian Law and is also a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Ethnic Studies Department at Mills College teaching a variety of courses pertaining to American Indian Studies. In November of 2007, she was appointed Acting Presiding Judge of the Yurok Tribe's Supreme Court. CalCASA looks forward to working with Christine who brings the knowledge and experience needed to move ahead in the implementation of CalCASA’s Tribal initiative.