By way of background, the purpose of the AOC is to assist the Judicial Council implement on the administrative end, decisions of the court. Decisions which arrive either through administrative policy, as decided by the council, as a result of legislative action; or, lawsuits.
Unfortunately since the Judicial Council has only recently noticed the AOC tail has long been wagging the Judicial Council dog...not much as changed.
Shelly La Botte explained the legislature charged the Judicial Council with creating the employment field of Supervised Visitation. Unfortunately the AOC again working in conjunction with, itself, and not the Judicial Council decriminalized crime via a "Supervised Visitation," form in which kidnapping became the crime-lite, "parental abduction."
That's just one example.
More telling is that the entire field of Supervised Visitation, created by the Judicial Council, after passing it off to the AOC, was created absent any and all oversight.
Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council created a non-professional field, zero oversight remains in the Field, remains.
What this means in practical terms is this: Con artists have discovered and populate the field.
Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors continue recommending custody be awarded to people who are in fact, documented child abusers and in some cases, suspects in cases child molesting.
But wait there's more!
In a conversation with Ms. LaBotte, the question: "Why doesn't the AOC return to the legislature and ask for clarification on the matter of creating Oversight for supervised visitation? Ask if the legislative intent was, when tasking agencies with creating the employment field of supervised visitation, if that included creating oversight?
To which Ms. LaBotte responded:
"I'm not going to respond to that."
In a follow up email to Shelly LaBotte the question was repeated:
"When I added, Why doesn't your agency go back to the legislature with the question: "Did the legislature want us to include "oversight" to the field of supervised visitation?" Your immediate response;
"I'm not going to respond to that."
Ms. LaBotte did respond by email to other questions. Just not the main one. Thus, on November 1, 2011, the below email was sent to Ms. LaBotte.
"Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: San Diego Supervised Visitation
Thank you for your email. In that your email didn't address the other, major issue: Lack of oversight. Please advise if you intend for the AOC or Judicial Council to query the legislature for clarification. Namely, if they anticipated when the Judicial Council was charged with the task of creating a new employment field, if the legislative intent was to include Oversight.
I refer to your "I'm not going to respond to that," comment yesterday. As I previously mentioned, common sense dictates when an agency is charged with creating a field of employment, the creation would include Oversight.
Thus, your "I'm not going to respond to that" is simply not serving the needs of Californians. It is however, serving the needs of pedophiles, con artists passing themselves off as therapists, and San Diego attorneys in dual careers, who in violation of Local Rules, for employing their teenage children to supervise.
Ms LaBotte continues her refusal to respond.
On November 6, 2011, the request was made to Ethel Mays, in the hope someone would respond. We will keep asking until someone does.
As an aside, readers may be interested in the Tagline the AOC created for itself, which is on the bottom of every email.
"AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California, 1961–2011”
Two things seem clear.
1. On its own, neither the Judicial Council or the AOC seems motivated to correct the gaping error in supervised visitation.
2. Neither do legislators. In 12 years, not a single member of the legislature has addressed this, now bizarre failure.