Social Agency Boycotts Court Commissioner

Saying that a Los Angeles County Superior Court commissioner has a “pattern of making orders which endanger children,” the county’s child welfare agency has embarked on an extraordinary policy of blocking the judicial official from hearing new cases.

Several hundred cases have been directed away from the courtroom of Commissioner Bradley A. Stoutt in the last 4 1/2 months, since the county objected to Stoutt’s handling of cases involving the custody and care of neglected and abused children.

The blanket use of the so-called “affidavits of prejudice” against a single judge is a rare legal maneuver that has been used by prosecutors or public defenders to boycott a jurist who they believe is biased against their offices. It is the first time in recent memory that the action, which does not require a hearing, is being taken against a judicial official in Children’s Court.

Social workers charged, in interviews with The Times, that Stoutt has a predilection for returning children to their biological parents, often despite the danger of abuse or neglect in those homes.

“Natural parents can waltz into that court and with hardly any qualification by [Stoutt], get their kids,” said one lawyer, who has represented social workers. “He has some kind of belief that he is mandated to turn these children over to their parents. That can really be a dangerous practice.”

Stoutt, 61, would say little about such charges or the county’s blanket use of the legal device to keep him off new cases. But the supervising judge of the Children’s Court in Monterey Park and 17 lawyers who have appeared before Stoutt spoke out strongly in his defense.

The lawyers wrote a letter calling him “one of the finest judicial officers” serving at the court, one who “mixes compassion for the families who appear in his court with the legal standards imposed by the Legislature.”

*

The controversy surrounding Stoutt is the latest example of contentiousness between many of the county’s social workers and the 17 judges, commissioners and referees who must rule on what is best for thousands of children who have been removed from homes because of abuse and neglect.

Social workers often feel beleaguered by judges’ orders and the morass of detailed paperwork they must complete on each of the scores of cases they handle. Judges on the other hand often become frustrated when the social workers fail to comply with complex state codes.

The sense of an adversarial relationship--already a given in many child dependency cases--has increased in the last year. It was in the spring 1995 that another judge placed a toddler named Lance Helms in his father’s home, despite repeated warnings from a social worker that the boy could be in danger. The boy was later killed by the father’s girlfriend.

Lance’s death became not only a lightning rod for criticism of the court, but the catalyst for a raft of reform legislation, much of which is due for a vote next week in the state Capitol.

Stoutt has been a particularly controversial figure during his decade as a Juvenile Court commissioner.

*

Critics said his orders go too far--coddling the least compliant parents and offering them extended counseling and other services, even when they have shown no willingness to take responsibility for their children. Backers say he simply makes sure that parents and children receive the counseling, health care and other services state law entitles them to. He has alienated inefficient social workers, who balk at doing their jobs, Stoutt’s supporters say.

County officials said that confidentiality laws governing the juvenile courts prevent them from discussing many of their specific complaints about Stoutt’s rulings. The county counsel’s office, which represents social workers, sent summaries this spring of about 30 of Stoutt’s rulings that it found objectionable to Michael Nash, supervising judge of the Dependency Court.

The head of the county children’s agency briefly described one of the cases in a March letter. In that case, a state appellate court ordered a child returned to protective custody, reversing Stoutt’s action.

“Commissioner Stoutt released the child to his parents knowing they have extensive histories of drug addiction and domestic violence,” according to the letter, written by Peter Digre, director of the Department of Children and Family Services.

Digre’s letter led to the blanket blockade of cases that would have gone to Stoutt’s courtroom.

All parties in Superior Court cases have the right to file one challenge against a judge, automatically shifting their cases to another judge without a hearing. The best-known instance of this “papering” of a judge came recently came when O.J. Simpson’s lawyers rejected the first judge assigned to hear the wrongful death case against Simpson.

In Stoutt’s case, however, the county counsel’s office is blocking three to five cases every day. Since mid-March, Stoutt has not been receiving new cases, although he still oversees about 500 cases that were assigned to him before the mass papering.

Stoutt said he is limited to what he can say in his own defense because of confidentiality laws. He did cite two appellate court rulings in the public record, which he said confirmed his careful attention to the safety of children.

In a 1993 case, a state appellate court upheld Stoutt’s decision to take two toddlers away from their father, even though the children were judged too young to be competent to testify to their reports of sexual abuse.

In 1994, Stoutt refused to grant a mentally retarded mother more than the standard 18 months of counseling and services to reunite with her son. The judge said the boy should be placed for adoption. The appellate court reversed his decision.

Nash came strongly to the defense of his colleague. The supervising judge said he reviewed most of the 30 cases that social workers had cited as objectionable and disagreed with that finding.

He said the county has seldom appealed Stoutt’s rulings. “If they don’t pursue their legal remedy [with an appeal], then either they are not doing their job or Commissioner Stoutt is doing his job correctly,” Nash said. “He is a good bench officer. He does a good job.”

An official in the county counsel’s office, who asked not to be identified, said Stoutt has adhered to the letter of the law in many cases, making his rulings difficult to appeal. But the county lawyer insisted that Stoutt’s judgment is poor and that “he takes unnecessary risks even if, strictly speaking, it could be considered legal.”