Opinion
Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Opinion L.A.

Newton: Targeting an L.A. judge

Last week, when a boy in Los Angeles foster care appeared before Judge Amy Pellman, she welcomed him warmly and clearly knew his history. Pellman asked how his martial-arts class was going, complimented him on his grades and urged him to enroll in a program that would help prepare him for college.

Another case that morning involved a 19-year-old woman preparing to emancipate from foster care. She boasted of keeping her grade-point average above 3.0; Pellman called that "awesome."

And when Pellman saw two boys at the back of the court stirring restlessly, she asked if either would like a teddy bear or a book. "A book," one replied. "Right answer," she said, and pointed him to a shelf full of choices.

That's the way Pellman's court works. It's all about the needs of children, unsurprising given Pellman's background. Before becoming a judge in 2008, she served for five years as the legal director for the Alliance for Children's Rights. She's written extensively about children and the law, focusing most specifically on the foster-care system. In 2003, the American Bar Assn. gave her its Child Advocacy Law Award.

So Pellman seems an unlikely candidate to be accused of endangering children. But that's exactly what is happening as part of a strange battle between her and the L.A. Department of County Counsel, whose lawyers lately have been routinely filing papers to remove Pellman from cases they handle. The challenges do not require explanation, so the reasons behind them are a bit murky. But the county counsel has succeeded in having Pellman taken off many cases in recent weeks, and that in turn has forced other judges at the Los Angeles Dependency Court to absorb her load.

James Owens, an assistant county counsel who oversees the office's Dependency Division, declined to comment in detail about the Pellman case, saying, "We don't discuss judges in public." He also declined to say precisely how often lawyers with his office have filed motions to remove Pellman. Producing such a number, he said, "would take a lot of work." He did allow that the objections have been filed "frequently."

Others familiar with the conflict said county lawyers believe that Pellman is too skeptical of the Department of Children and Family Services and, over the objections of social workers, too willing to return children to homes where there has been domestic violence.

Whether to return children in foster care to their parents is one of the toughest issues dependency judges have to deal with. Foster care is rarely a good long-term solution, and reunification can be the best option if the custodial parent has taken responsibility for ensuring a safe environment for the child. On the other hand, returning a child to an unsafe situation can result in tragedy — and it has on more than one occasion in Los Angeles County.

Pellman would not comment on the challenges being filed against her, but I've watched her handle several dozen cases in recent months, courtesy of a new openness that prevails in Los Angeles Dependency Court since Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash opened the courthouse to the press earlier this year.

At least in my experience, Pellman is the opposite of reckless with the fates of the children before her. To the contrary, she's attentive and efficient and demonstrably engaged in the lives of children. Her bench is bracketed by teddy bears, and a SpongeBob SquarePants tapestry covers one courtroom wall. Last week, one young woman who's in foster care complained to Pellman that she'd gone without the right eyeglasses since early this year and that when her foster home was changed, her clothes were left behind. The judge listened patiently and then admonished the child's social worker for the breakdown that has compounded the girl's troubles and prevented her from landing a summer job.

"I don't feel enough effort was put in," Pellman sternly remarked.

That kind of admonishment also is typical of Pellman. She's hard on social workers and on the lawyers who represent them. And she's been at odds with the Department of Children and Family Services for years, dating to her time with the alliance, when Pellman fought to close the county's orphanage and the department resisted. Given that history and her temperament, Pellman's defenders believe that the campaign against her is not really about defending children so much as it is about retaliating against a judge who's tough and sharp-tongued.

Nash concedes that the county counsel has the right to object to Pellman, but he's perplexed by the controversy. "She's professional and focused … a great lawyer, a great child advocate," Nash said. "She's not a nasty cuss like I was at times."

And as for the allegation that Pellman is putting children at risk? Nash did not mince words: "I just think that's ludicrous."

Jim Newton’s column appears Mondays. His latest book is "Eisenhower: The White House Years." Reach him at jim.newton@latimes.com or follow him on Twitter: @newton_jim.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • For L.A. Dependency Court, a first: the press
    For L.A. Dependency Court, a first: the press

    Opening dependency hearings to the press and public is good for kids.

  • There's no place for graffiti in America's national parks
    There's no place for graffiti in America's national parks

    City dwellers can argue over whether graffiti is vandalism or art or some strange hybrid of the two. But when it appears in national parks, there should be no question: It's desecration.

  • Britain's election: A muddle across the pond
    Britain's election: A muddle across the pond

    Americans exasperated by the gridlock in Washington sometimes look enviously at Britain, where the parliamentary system combines executive and legislative duties and the prime minister almost always gets his or her way. Unlike a president who may face a Congress controlled by the other party —...

  • The USA Freedom Act: A smaller Big Brother
    The USA Freedom Act: A smaller Big Brother

    Last fall, Congress was on the verge of doing away with the most troubling invasion of privacy revealed by Edward Snowden: the National Security Agency's indiscriminate collection of the telephone records of millions of Americans. But then opponents cited the emergence of Islamic State as a reason...

  • Does Congress know we're at war?
    Does Congress know we're at war?

    When President Obama announced nine months ago that the United States was going to war against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Congress reached an unusual near-consensus on two big points: Entering the fight was a good idea, but it was also important that the legislative branch formally authorize...

  • Chris Christie's political 'machine' — it's not such a bad thing
    Chris Christie's political 'machine' — it's not such a bad thing

    Here's a question whose answer may seem obvious, but isn't. Which is worse, a system in which political hacks can cause a massive traffic jam as a form of political payback, or a system in which it's a federal crime for political hacks to exact such retribution?

Comments
Loading