I'd like to call the criminal justice committee of 1 30 p.m.

to order Chairman at your recess meeting.

You had a few members missing.

We will add them now.

Commissioner Aguilar, you're in the room.

Commissioner Aguilar has been added.

Commissioner Degnan is in the room.

We will add her.

Commissioner Sean Morrison is excused.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison has been added.

And Mr.

Chairman is present.

All members present with the exception of excused absences for Commissioner Gaynor and Commissioner Sean Morrison.

There is a quorum, sir.

Is there a need for a roll call?

We do require a remote roll call.

Commissioner Marita, are you still connected?

I'm still here.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right.

Like uh Commissioner Lowry to call for a remote roll call, please.

So move chair.

Thank you.

Seconded by Commissioner.

Aguilar.

Thank you.

Commissioner Aguilar, your vote.

Commissioner Aguilar is aye.

Commissioner Naya.

Is aye.

Thank you.

Commissioner Britton.

Aye.

Thank you.

Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Degnan.

Commissioner Degnan, your vote for remote roll call.

Is aye.

It should be recorded.

Commissioner Degnan is a aye.

Commissioner Gainer is excuse.

Commissioner Laurie.

Aye.

Commissioner McCaskill.

Following votes for aye.

Commissioner Miller.

Can we just I can't see over there?

She's right here.

Yes.

I'm right here.

Is this on?

Yeah, it's on.

Okay.

Can you just state for the record whether or not we had a letter for remote participation for this meeting?

Did we?

I don't know.

Did we ever I I received a notice from the Commissioner's office late last night of about 10 o'clock.

So no, it was not within the 24 hour period.

Okay, so we we are not following the rules then to have remote participation, so I vote present.

Commissioner Miller is present.

Commissioner Marita, your vote, ma'am.

Morita I.

Commissioner Marita is aye.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison is aye.

Commissioner Sean Morrison is excused.

Commissioner Scott is absent.

Commissioner Stamps.

Is I think a high or aye.

Commissioner Trevor.

Aye.

Is an I vote.

Commissioner Vasquez is an aye vote.

Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair is aye.

Chairman, we have 13 ayes, one present, and then three absent.

For Gaynor.

Thank you.

Sean Morrison and Scott.

All right.

Yes, sir.

Before we continue, I would just like to thank Commissioner Anaya for the lunch provided.

And an early happy birthday on my channel.

Happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

Here here.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday, Commissioner Anaya.

Happy birthday to you.

All right.

She wants 50 cent birthday.

She wants the version.

Thank you.

I don't see them in the room, but I will call them because they registered.

Jessica Jackson.

Is not present.

George Blakemore.

Not present.

Not present.

Zoe Lee.

Not present.

Taiwan Simps.

Thank you.

Please come.

Following Taiwan will be John McHugh, then Jennifer Byron.

Thank you.

Jennifer Barron.

Thank you.

Taiwan, John, then Jennifer.

Then we have another pre-registered list, sir.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Um sorry about that one.

Could I please begin?

Good evening, Commissioner.

Good evening.

This is the longest um I've been here.

Well, I wanted to stay because I wanted to address the domestic violence.

Um I guess task force in regards to what I've been dealing with for the last three years, which would be 23D79597, a consolidated case that when I came into the 555 West Harris and filed a domestic violence um report to get an OP, which would have been 23 D, no, 23 OP72315.

In the consolidation, I'm now the respondent and not the petitioner.

I have documentation that states petitioner, petitioner, petitioner, petitioner, all the way up until 927, 2023, when I am then transformed into the respondent.

And Alberta Reed, who is the who was the respondent, is the petitioner.

How this occurs, I don't know.

There's a gentleman who won't come into the room, Sam Williams, who engaged me in 2023 in August.

Um told me that he was the chancellor of the domestic relations division, explained to me a few things, which was all fraudulent and all misinformation.

Um Deanna Williamson is the manager of the domestic relations division.

Deanna Williamson was able to get an order of protection, a plenary order protects for two years.

Their case number is 240 P 07366, stating that I was stalking or harassing her.

I wasn't.

I was simply trying to take care of my business and get back to my child, Yaske Roosevelt Sims, who I have not seen in three years.

She was given this order protection 0809 2024.

I do not sleep with this woman.

I do not reside with this individual, and I was not stalking this individual.

I was simply trying to hold her accountable for not doing the job and which I was coming there to be to have taken care of.

How she was able to obtain this order, I would definitely like to know.

I would definitely like to know.

But on the outset of that, there are countless Americans, countless individuals here in this room who can might who maybe can reset recount the same Herald and tale of dealing with the domestic relations division.

And so it seems that this um system or this portion of the judicial system does not work for the civilian or the constituent.

So we would have to understand why and like to understand this individual told me nine years, nine years she's been dealing with something, and this is a female.

I don't want to not be without my child for six more years.

So how do we expedite this?

When does when does this begin to work for me, the victim, on paper, whether it be from CPD, on paper, whether it's in the oversight committee, and on paper, when I walked into 555 West Harris and filed for order protection, I have all the documentations, yet it's not working for me.

And I would definitely like to understand.

And also, um June 15th, I'll go to I'm going to jail.

They're gonna jail me for not taking a behavior clinical exam.

In regards to this matter, three years ago.

And I would like to understand how.

How can I be threatened to take a behavior clinical exam, go to trial for something that I'm the victim of.

Help me to understand that.

Judge Ren over in 555 West Harrison said Monday that she was going to scoop me up.

So Monday I would have gone to jail.

Only I went to court over Zoom.

So help me to understand how have I been criminalized like this.

John McHugh is next.

Okay, I'm John McHill.

Um I won't be the same guy as yesterday.

Close her off today, so I won't be apologizing to uh State's attorney Burke or to any other judiciary in this county.

Um I'll I'll be in jail with you soon enough.

Uh they issued child support on me when they didn't even outside a statute when they didn't even um provide me any parenting time.

A guardian lightum, purportedly, she filed an appearance into my case using my child's full name, and she did that without signed court orders.

Um I'm here for to challenge Chief Beach because I filed a notice of a Rule 21B.

That has been gate capped, and it is was taught spoken upon a year ago, and Donna Miller was thorough enough to listen to the public testimony.

She was thorough enough to ask the hard questions of Regina Scenecio.

And I I have to give credit to Sarah Brown.

She's a legal eagle, she's reforming.

Um there's Illinois Supreme Court rule 755-506B.

My head's filled with all of these.

It requires guardian items every 90 days to file um their fees and invoices into the clerk of court's record, which can be changed and modified at any time.

Um that has happened with the orders when I filed a substitution to judge.

I've since audited 161 of these.

Only 5% compliance by all of these guardian items following this Supreme Court rule.

This this could this does constitute a RICO.

However, what's more important is what I've discovered and learned through this journey and the decisions that I've had to make.

Only to learn that the 1970s constitution literally is a coup.

I think it's racist.

I think what it has taken place is we send a lower class amount of people to war.

We changed the 1970s constitution.

We did not ratify it by the people.

We decided to give it a date.

We made the modifications to saying that we would remove immunity from state immunity because states have immunity from federal government.

But what we did was we left the back door open for the General Assembly to come back and legislate that into law, creating identification only charges to go after judges.

There's all these people across this country, and I want it to weigh heavily on everyone's mind that the 1899 juvenile act is what has created jurisdiction to state jurisdiction.

It's spread throughout this whole entire country.

We have multiple people following what's going on globally instead of us communicating at home what's happening.

I don't believe we need jails for our kids.

I think funding should go to the inner city schools.

I think we should be taking all of the money that we have and putting it into charter schools.

And we should develop our children better.

I don't think it's a good idea for us to keep jailing people, prosecuting me for uh child support when you know I know inventory management.

I work for United Airlines and I manage the largest fleet of Boeing airplanes, split shifts nonstop.

So I know data and I know process, and I'm here to help.

So I'm opening conversation to anyone and challenging Chief Beach with Rule 21 because I will be filing a Rule 383 supervisory order.

Jennifer Barron.

After Jennifer, um Anastasia is connected remotely, then we'll have Dieter Cantu and Alina Crawley.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Jennifer Barron.

I am a domestic violence survivor and an Illinois protective parent who has been involved in family court proceedings since 2017.

I appeared before this body back on March 12, 2026, and again yesterday, because my experience and the experiences of other protective parents raise serious concerns about domestic relations cases involving abuse allegations, child safety, due process, court appointed professionals, and the absence of meaningful oversight.

At the last meeting, which was yesterday, a commissioner stated that there was nothing that this board could assist with.

That is no longer only a private custody dispute.

That is a public policy and public safety concern.

Public servants do not lose responsibility simply because the problem touches the court system.

If DCFS, IDFPR, the Judicial Inquiry Board, the Attorney General, and the courts each say the problem belongs somewhere else, then families are left with no effective remedy and no functioning oversight.

That is exactly where elected officials are needed.

This board and this committee can help by holding public hearings, requesting testimony, collecting data, referring concerns to state legislatures, asking agencies to explain gaps in oversight, and examining how county supported systems are failing children and protective parents.

Because they are.

Our family court actors effectively controlling the oversight process in Illinois.

When families are told there is nothing we can do, what we hear is that no institution is willing to take responsibility while children remain in danger and protective parents and children are silenced.

And time has expired for the speaker.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

All right.

Alina Crowley.

Anastasia.

Let's have Anastasia come and then Alina, you can.

You can still go to the mic.

She's remote.

You go to the mic.

Anastasia, are you connected?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Anastasia is connected remotely.

We're trying to wait for her.

But you stay there.

She disconnected.

Alina, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Aliana Crailey, and my this testimony is an official report to you about the crimes committed in the walls of the circuit court of Cook County.

First, fee extortion and suppression of free resources.

Under 750 ILCS 5 slash 506 and 5 slash 60410, judges are mandated to evaluate family's financial status before appointing private expensive guardian athleteums and custody evaluators.

They routinely do not do so.

Instead, court actors actively hide free county resources to protect private profits.

Under Cook County Circuit Court rule 13.4 family court services explicitly provided free.

Court ordered custody evaluations for families making under 50,000 a year.

Yet this active, fully funded county resource is completely suppressed from parents by court officers, even when parents ask questions about this resource.

Custody evaluations runs 240,000.

Each evaluation.

It can go even higher.

Child custody cases are required by Illinois Supreme Court rule to be decided within 18 months.

However, court officers ignore the Supreme Court mandate and run the cases for as long as possible to gain as much profit as possible.

Second, statutory fraud.

Under 750 ILCS5 slash 501A3, temporary child support shall be dealt based on allocated parenting time.

It's a patient from Illinois law.

The court routinely enters child support orders without first holding hearings allocating physical parenting time.

Furthermore, court officers are committing fraud by substitute substituting real parenting time with electronic contact technologies.

How does it happen?

This is uh Illinois Marriage and Marriage Dissolution Act does not allow this fraud.

It just doesn't.

This violates uh 750 ILCS 5 slash 600.

One minute.

Which defines parenting time as in-person care taking.

Allocating of parenting time requires a hearing.

A hearing hearings don't happen.

There is lack of transparency and accountability.

And again, uh the way multiple complaints filed under Rule 21B and the Chief Judge's office, Catherine Nolan.

She she sends out people.

She does she does not solve the problem.

Also, we had meeting with Cook County Justice Advisor Counsel does.

No one hears.

Everyone sends to judicial inquiry board.

However, it's not possible for them even to handle the number of cases.

People wait for years for responses.

And we demand that our testimonies are taken as evidence and cases referred to approach sources.

Ratrina Alley.

Ratrina, are you connected?

Ratrina Alley.

No.

Sarah and Diane Brown.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Sarah Brown.

I am a survivor of domestic violence.

I have found that this court process, especially within the domestic relations courtroom, has re-victimized me in countless ways.

Throughout this lengthy ordeal, I have encountered eight judges, two guardian ad lightums, and one child rat.

Each of these transitions has not only added to the emotional toll on my family, but also has resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in court fees.

No, not court fees, attorney fees.

This has been a grueling process for me, particularly as I share a child with my abuser.

One of the most troubling aspects of this system is the influence of a subcommittee that comprises of private attorneys that is responsible for selecting attorneys appointed to the Cook County Circuit Court.

You heard it right, commissioners.

You guys have a subcommittee that appoints attorneys to an approved list that judges are able to appoint at their leisure and at whatever however amount of money they want to charge the constituents per hour.

After six months of the Chicago Cook County Task Force, it has become very concerning to admit that there is there exists a glaring lack of oversight and transparency in this particular process, not the court system.

I just want to focus in on the subcommittee because what is consistent in a lot of cases is that these judges are appointing certain attorneys and which should supposed to be random, but certain attorneys are consistently appointed.

I know some of the individuals in the room from domestic relations division, they get a little uneasy when I talk about that.

So for many of us speaking publicly, I just want to remind everyone in the room.

We are human.

Reminding myself when her case began in 2017.

After nine years and eight judges.

This case then was transferred to Judge Maritza Martinez where she also continued to allow J GAL Lee Jacobson to run her courtroom.

Domestic court needs an upgrade, meaning accountability.

Court reporters are needed.

Judge Marissa Martinez with me sitting in a courtroom being disrespected to my daughter.

My grandson life has been interrupted.

He cries.

Domestic court is broken.

No court reporter, no accountability.

Judge Martinez was in, I was in her courtroom with a mask on, and she put me out just by sitting there.

But it was more than that.

They wanted me out to courtroom so they can tear my daughter down saying different things.

There needs to be accountability.

The second thing that concerns me.

I was in the court.

Well, I was on a Zoom meeting, and Judge Maritza Martinez and time is hell.

So please wrap up your statement.

Until a couple who had children, and one was special need.

The attorney who was representing mentioned that Judge Martinez that the mother is that's on the case in the case.

The father's has the father's car, and she had not paid her fees.

And the dad wanted to see his children, but he's on cocaine.

Judge Maritza Martinez's response was can he use a patch?

The attorney said he's addicted to co tank cocaine.

The attorney mentioned to her again is expired.

She has not paid her fees.

Judge Martinez's response was she was going to hold the mother's child support until she paid the fees.

No accountability.

No accountability.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Anastasia is connected remotely.

All right, sir.

She is having technical difficulty.

Let's see if she does return.

You want to keep going until she Yeah, I think uh everyone that has registered or contacted us has been called.

Okay.

Madam Chair, do you know of anyone else?

Speakers.

All right.

We've concluded, sir.

With that being said, Commissioner Miller will now move to approve as substituted.

Item 2536.

I'm sorry.

No, it's okay.

I just want to add it as a postponement.

Yes, ma'am.

Is that leave to be at all?

Leave to at all.

Okay, on the item.

Yes, ma'am.

Sure.

Well, go ahead.

We'll go ahead.

Um can we move this item?

Thank you.

Let me finish this item.

All right.

Commissioner Miller will move to approve item number 253661.

Is a proposed resolution calling for a hearing of the criminal justice committee to consider measures to be implemented by the public safety, county stakeholders to ensure fair and equitable processing of domestic relations, mediations, and child representation, seconded by Commissioner who said that.

I missed it.

I thought it was Delio.

Second by Commissioner Alma Naya.

Commissioner Miller, the floor is yours.

Yeah, I just would third.

Oops.

I don't know what's going on with this microphone.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure we stay in proper protocol order.

So we're having this domestic hearing, uh, domestic relations hearing.

So thank you to all the speakers.

And I want to thank everyone for your attending and to your dedication to this important hearing.

I still I would like to extend a special thank you to our presenters who are going to be presenting shortly from the Office of the Chief Judge, the state's attorney office, the Cook County Sheriff's Office, the Clerk of the Court, and the Office of the Public Guardian.

We take we thank you for taking your time and energy to put together these presentations so that everyone can hear them all at one time at the same time, which is again the purpose of a hearing.

And this is following our last domestic violence hearing where we held in July, and we've been working closely with each one of your agencies, which we also appreciate your time over these last several months.

You have consistently provided critical data, presented key findings, and offered thoughtful expert guidance on these complex issues.

We look forward to hearing more of your insights today.

And more importantly, I want to express deep gratitude to the survivors, all of you who testify today and have testified in the past.

You are certainly the heartbeat of what this is all about and the reason that we called these hearings in the first place.

Your courage and sharing your experience is what makes this work possible.

And this entire endeavor is anchored in your voices.

So today's focus of our hearing will focus on the path to resolution with specific emphasis on two critical areas, one being domestic relation mediations and child representation.

We have a great deal of work to do and a lot to cover, and it probably will not end with this hearing today, but we will continue over time.

So thank you, Chair, for convening this meeting.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stamps.

No, I just want to say thank you to all of the work that's been done, uh, including the task force to address the issue of domestic violence.

Unfortunately, um, so much of what I hear in terms of testimony I can relate to relative to the treatment in those courtrooms and just being re-victimized oftentimes.

So I pray that in this body that we're able through this hearing to bring some resolution and to come up with some ways in which we can better address the needs of those um neighbors that find themselves in domestic and family court.

I agree.

All right, we're gonna begin and we're gonna move the agenda pretty quickly.

So with your uh your acknowledgement, Commissioner Miller, we want to call on the office of the chief judge.

Yes, thank you.

We have the office of the chief judge come forward.

Uh is it a long testimony or short?

I have a PowerPoint.

Yeah, there's PowerPoint, come on up.

They're each gonna speak like five minutes.

Okay.

So if you have a PowerPoint, come up here to the day as please.

Yeah, please.

I can sit over here.

Sure.

She's gonna speak.

Hello, uh, my name is Kate Nolan.

I'm the director of legal research of the office of the chief judge.

I'm here on behalf of the office.

Thank you for inviting us to speak about these issues, which I think we all agree are very important.

Commissioner Miller has we've been participating in the task force with the city county and just appreciate your time today.

And I know that it's late, so I will go through this PowerPoint um relatively quickly, but um I'll also send copies so you have it available.

And if you need me to slow down, please just let me know.

So, first slide, please.

The first slide is just what we're talking about today in terms of the uh resolution, so we can move to the second slide.

And the the next slide is about the appointment process for GALs.

Um this just uh gives some of the terms.

So GL is a guardian ad litem.

It is appointed for the best interest of the children.

It's appointed in court cases where um the judge needs more information about uh the best interest of the children and they do investigations.

They are separately independent licensed attorneys, they're not court employees.

Uh child reps are also attorneys, but they have a different role, and they do um they are an advocate for the children's best interest.

And then finally, attorneys for child are actually children attorneys that are appointed to represent the child's wishes.

So those are the three different roles.

Um judges determine based on a case's needs when uh any of these three attorneys for children are appointed.

And there's a court-approved attorney roster that these uh attorneys are appointed from.

Um, these attorneys are not appointed automatically, they're not appointed in all cases, and they're done on a case-by-case basis.

Can we go to the next slide?

Just give some quick stats about the numbers.

So we have about 60,000 domestic relations cases per year.

There are about 3,400 GL, CR, AFC appointments, those are the child attorneys.

And about so that's about 5% of cases in our system have GALs.

The average time at which a GAL is appointed is 28 months, so that would mean from filing to 28 months in the case is generally when these um attorneys would be appointed.

Therefore, cases where the attorney is needed to move the case along.

Okay, the next slide is about oversight, selection of these attorneys.

There are a lot of factors that go into when a judge would appoint a GAL.

A GAL would be appointed based on the complexity of the case, the representation status of the party, what cultural factors, geography, financial considerations.

Judges do take into consideration the experience and the training that those attorneys have, and prior involvement in cases.

So if a GLL GAL may have a conflict in certain cases, so they wouldn't be appointed.

The next slide, please.

Oversight.

So this is a topic that has come up a lot, and I think is a very important topic for us to discuss.

And I do think we would like to highlight the ways in which we there is oversight of GAL so that everyone can be on the same page about the process.

So there is a court warning.

Oh, the thunder, yes.

This topic is very important.

Everyone thinks so.

Um and we joke, but it is this is I just want to take one second just to say something on behalf of myself, which is that these kinds of court cases are very emotional.

These are they at the heart of like our families, our children, and uh at the office of the chief judge understands why people are here to present, and we are listening to your testimony and hearing it and trying to make the court process fair for everyone.

So I just want to say that in my set my little break here, and I want to say that the um the court approved list.

How do you get on it?

You have to be uh an attorney in good standing.

You have to take certain education uh CLEs about these topics about domestic relations, about domestic violence.

You have to um have domestic violence training.

We have partnerships with the network and the coalition against domestic violence where we have training for these attorneys.

You have to accept at least one pro bono appointment per year, and you have to accept cases throughout Cook County, so you can't specialize in a certain area, you have to be willing to accept cases throughout the county.

And if you do not comply with these, you are removed from the list.

Ongoing to stay on the list, you also have to do annual training, again in D of DV and DR, and you have to um uh attend the trainings that are presented by there's medical professionals, there's other attorneys, so it's a wide-ranging uh topics that you would cover each year to make sure that you're up to date.

And then finally, finally, we have a mentorship program.

So each new GAL is partnered with an experienced GAL to learn what the job is and how to do it and to do their best.

And so those are that's the oversight that we have.

We also I want to point out it's not on the slide, but I would like to note that all GALs are licensed attorneys in the state of Illinois.

There's an independent um oversight, which is the attorney registration and discipline committee.

Any attorney in the state of Illinois is subject to the code of professional conduct and the ARDC.

So there is an ability if a GAL is behaving inappropriately or unethically to report them to that oversight committee.

Okay, next slide.

Okay.

Now the fees.

There has been a lot of discussion about the fees for GALs, and understandably so because we've heard testimony about some fees that are quite large, and it is hard to understand why those would be fees.

We the GALs are licensed private attorneys, so they don't work for the court.

They are professionals who charge a fee.

There are statutory and court-ordered rules by which they follow to determine um what the fees will be for their case.

The case it's a case-by-case basis.

So some cases will have a very simple outcome with low fees, others will have higher fees.

All parties are informed at the time of an appointment what the fee for the GAL will be.

There is a determination at the time what the financial capabilities of the parties are, and the judge takes that into into consideration when appointing a particular GAL, knowing the fee hourly rate of the attorney and knowing what the case may involve.

Um there is also a regular uh check-ins about the uh approval by the judge of what the fees are.

So the guardian ad lightum has to uh um submit their invoices to the judge, and the judges use their discretion to um the statute calls for reasonable fees for the GALs.

And so I just want to highlight that these are professionals, attorneys appointed in complex cases after months of litigation in only five percent of our cases, and the fees are determined based upon a reasonable state reasonableness standard under the statute.

Okay, next slide.

Court reporting.

This is another topic that touches on some statewide and nationwide considerations about the lack of court reporters as a profession.

So in the domestic relations division, there are two types of cases that are required by law to have court reporters.

Those are default prove-ups, so default prove-up of the case, or an in-camera interview of a child.

In the domestic relations division, we also have court reporters for emergency orders of protection.

We also have the capability to have court recording via Zoom and then later transcription of all orders of protection.

But unfortunately, we are not able to hire and retain court reporters because there is a statewide and nationwide shortage.

We make the best use of the resources that we have, and we try to use technology to bridge the gaps that we can't meet with a human court reporter.

But unfortunately, I know that it's been brought up in our conversations or in previous um iterations of this discussion why we don't use AI technology or other technology to be able to record all court hearings and be able to have a record.

Unfortunately, that is something that has been uh being addressed by the Supreme Court and it even in our office.

The technology is not quite there to have it be an official court record.

So, yes, we can record.

We can make a recording of what happens, but in order to be an official court record for the Supreme Court, it has to have certain criteria that are met for accuracy and for reliability in order to be used in court at a later time.

And the technology is not yet here that we can have that be across the board.

And so I would say that both sides, whether you're the respondent, petitioner, whatever side you're on in a court case, you want the record to be as accurate as possible.

And we still need human court reporters to do the work so that it is accurate.

And so I think the Office of the Chief Judge is absolutely open and willing to discuss how technology can improve this gap in service and would welcome the opportunity to discuss to work on that topic if the technology meets the requirements of the law.

And I just the next slide, please.

And this is just a quick overview.

I know we've had um conversations in other um areas about the differences between domestic relations and domestic violence, and this just lays them out.

I think um by this time, many of us are very aware of that domestic relations is a civil division, um, it handles uh parenting cases, and it does have can have orders of protection built into those cases, but it is a civil practice of the law, whereas the domestic violence division has both civil and criminal.

So there can be criminal penalties and criminal cases within domestic violence, but the civil domestic relations is civil.

Next slide, please.

That doesn't mean though that there isn't coordination between the domestic violence and the domestic relations division.

In fact, there's a lot since 2022.

We've had an exchange program which um allows a someone who is filing an order of protection, maybe at 555 or in another courthouse who has a pending domestic relations case for that person to be able to file the order of protection into the domestic relations case so that the judge who's familiar with both of the parties can make determinations being familiar with the case and familiar with the family.

We um since we've had this exchange program, there's been 1,900 cases sent from the domestic violence division to the domestic relations division.

Those judges coordinate frequently and attempt to have the least amount of transfer between the cases so that litigants are able to be heard, they're able to be heard in the venue that is most appropriate for their case, and they have consistency with judges.

Next slide is training.

Training for judges has come up frequently about whether judges in domestic relations are trained to handle the complex issues that come up in domestic violence.

We do have a lot of training for those judges.

They um shadow uh experienced judges, they get training on domestic violence issues, and they are trained in domestic violence, family law, judicial best practices.

They also attend annual um edcon where they get judicial training on the topics in their practice area.

Next slide, please.

Oh, that's it for me.

I know I went through that very quickly, um, and I hope that um I was able to answer some of the basic questions here, but I of course I don't know how we're doing this, but I'm open for questions.

But I of course I don't know how how we're doing this, but I'm open for questions.

Okay.

Questions from any of the commissioners.

Commissioner Miller?

Commissioner Stamps.

Were you going to present something?

No.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Thank you.

I just wanted to get some clarity on you mentioned the oversight committee.

Yes.

Can you explain how that process works and how um people who file a grievance with the oversight committee would get information about it?

Yes, and I'm gonna defer if you don't mind, Commissioner Miller to my colleague.

This is Hannah Chelinski.

She is the senior division attorney for the domestic relations division, and for this specific question, I'm gonna ask her to answer.

So the oversight committee that you're referring to, um, we don't have an oversight committee for disciplinary issues within the wider GAL committee.

So the oversight committee that I believe you're referring to, Commissioner, that we referred to during the presentation had to do with um the higher not hiring with the selection of GALs and the appointment to committees.

Um, in terms of oversight, Kate briefly touched on what kind of oversight there is for attorneys that are appointed to the GAL list, and it does uh go back to the ARDC.

So the ARDC is really sort of the main um disciplinary faction that we have, and that is in line with the state expectations, supreme court rules, that kind of stuff for attorneys.

Yeah, so we've heard testimony from some of the um people who gave us public commentary that they've had issues with certain GALs very specifically, as well as judges, and so this oversight committee does not address that.

Where where would someone go for grievances?

Grievances will go to the ARDC, the uh or the JIB.

And so with the ARDC and the J, what is it?

J it's J R D J Judicial Inquiry Board.

Okay, the so if you do file that grievance, what happens and how can they find out that something is either moving forward, or would that happen would someone get information about that?

Because that we've heard that in this case in this testimony today, even and we heard it before, as well as in domestic violence court.

We keep hearing it, and so if there is something that we can point to that identifies once you file this grievance, this is the process.

Yeah.

So I'll I'll just briefly, and I uh I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself or this is information you already have.

Yes, we want to repeat it.

The two bodies are the ARDC and the judicial inquiry board.

The ARDC is for attorneys, the digital judicial inquiry board is for judges.

These are state bodies that independently investigate complaints about ethics or misconduct by attorneys or judges.

I I understand the frustration that these are separate bodies not contained within the judiciary, but that is by design to have independence.

The judges as independently elected officials of the state have an uh constitutional authority that uh is both needs to have accountability but also has to be protected.

And so by having the judicial inquiry board be an independent body that the judges do not have control over, that is the intention of that state body.

It's the same for the ARDC.

It is so local and uh courts don't have influence over the attorneys within their purview, and so that the there's an independence of the board because of this independence.

Unfortunately, our office or any other chief judge's office does not have control or information about the POP process.

It is actually a confidential process.

So if you submit an inquiry uh complaint to the judicial inquiry board, they will respond to you directly with information about your complaint.

So they will communicate directly with you, but may not communicate with the judge in the case and will not communicate with the chief judges' office.

So we are um by purpose and intention excluded from the process so that it is independent.

Well, thank you for that clarification.

I think that's one thing that I think everyone here, uh many people here would like to, and if that's out of your jurisdiction, we do have all the statutes that were outlined as to where this comes from, and so since that's a state issue that we can um look to making recommendations to take this issue by some sort of uh letter or correspondence with the state.

So thank you.

Nothing else for me.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stamps.

Um thank you.

Can you say the acronym again?

What is the acronym for the attorneys?

What is it again?

The ARDC, the attorney for attorney registration and discipline committee.

It is a statewide body that licenses and controls attorney behavior in the state of Illinois.

So if you're an attorney in Illinois, you register with them and you have to maintain your license and good standing with them.

Thank you.

So I've said this before.

Oftentimes when people come before us, we are not privy to the vocabulary of your industry.

So it would be helpful if you introduce the antecedent before you do the pronoun.

Okay, thank you.

Um the other question I have is if the OCJ committee that selects the GALs, why don't they handle the complaints?

Um we are under the authority of the ARDC, and so we abide by what the ARDC allows under state law and under the disciplinary committee, they handle disciplinary issues of GALs.

Um there is a removal process.

So we spoke about this at I believe it was a couple months ago at the DV hearing committee.

Um there is the ability for litigants to file motions to remove the GAL, and so there is an ability for an individual to file that with a judge, the judge can hear the complaints and they can either grant or deny that motion.

Um but in terms of disciplinary committee, that really is handled directly by the ARDC.

And that's again, as Kate described by design.

I see what is the frequency of GALs being assigned.

Um is there any data that identifies which families are assigned GALs most often?

So I think we provided the aggregate data about case numbers, the 62,000 cases and 5% of those are assigned to GALs.

But Commissioner Stamps, is your question different than that about like individual judges assigning GALs or the I'm really curious if there are judges that assign GAAL's most talk more often than other judges.

Okay.

I'm also curious if those families are black and brown more often than they are not.

I'm also curious about what the financial range is of these private attorneys that are supposed to be operating in the interest of children, and why isn't if the my so it's all of those questions, so just keep up with me.

And if it's in the best interest of children while the GALs are being assigned, then why isn't that a cost that is free to the families so that they are not paying additional costs to a private attorney to represent what's in the best interest of children?

Understood for your first question.

Your first question was about do we have data about the um statistics for individual judges appointing GLs?

Which ones do it more frequently?

And I believe that we we did compile that data at your request, and um so Hannah might be able to speak to that.

It was difficult to read at best.

Okay, so it was cumbersome and unclear.

And so what would be helpful to me is to say this judge in this chamber assigned this many G ALs in this block of time.

Okay, I don't I don't know if we have the I I believe we did, I believe there is a chart that was included in the original data that we submitted, so we can certainly resubmit that.

Um my recollection is that it broke the data that we submitted for the commissioner's review, broke down um appointments within the two-year period that you requested, Commissioner Stamps, and it um provided information on how many GALs were appointed, I believe, per month, if I'm remembering correctly.

And then at the end, there was an aggregate number for each judge.

What we found is that judges are appointing pretty commensurately across all 44 of our judges.

Um, and then the most times that a GAL is reappointed by one judge.

So for example, if Kate was a GAL and she was in front of um one of our domestic judges, the most times in that two years that Kate would be reappointed by the same judge is only three.

Is only what I'm saying?

It's only three times.

Yes.

So but we but Commissioner Stamps, we can resend that data to you in in a way that is more digestible because I do think the information is very important.

Um and so we're be we'd be happy to make it more understandable.

I'd prefer to send it up to the chair we will send it to the chair and share it to fairly much.

Absolutely so much um in and cleaning that up.

You also said I was also interested, there was other questions, so if you want to go on.

Yeah, um, I'm sorry, I uh I think the second question was about the racial makeup racial makeup of appointments.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Staffs, we do not keep that information.

Why?

Um it's not part of the appointment order, it's not within the statute, and that is also something that um I don't believe the court has thought to keep prior.

interested there was other questions so if you want to go on yeah um I'm sorry I uh I think the second question was about the racial makeup racial makeup of appointments okay um commissioner staff so we do not keep that information why um it's not part of the appointment order it's not within the statute and that is also something that um I don't believe the court has thought to keep prior Kate I don't know if you no it's not something the reason that I think it is important I understand that if you don't but uh one of the things that I did learn during the task force is the majority of the women who come before this court that appear in this court 70% of them are black and so I do think there is interest there at least to me of how families are being received in this in this particular court system and how they're being represented and is there any relationship between black families or the frequency in which black and black families get appointed a GAL and other families are not but that's a curiosity for Tara.

Okay and so I'm I'm just I'm just curious about that.

You also said something about a default prove up and again that's language that's germane to your area so could you please share with us what does that mean?

Yes I'll let Hannah since she's the practitioner sure so the default prove up approve up is sort of the end point of a case so when you get to the end of a I'm gonna use a divorce case as an example when you get to the end of a divorce you have to go to what's called a prove up hearing so it basically is establishing that the grounds have been met um under the statute and then the statute also requires that certain portions of the divorce are read onto the record so things like splitting up property um things like establishing whether maintenance is going to be paid um and then also talking about parenting time.

So the prove up is just the hearing that puts that onto the actual record a default prove up occurs when the petitioner is present in court and the respondent was served but did not appear or chose not to appear so a default happens when only one side is appearing and by statute it means that um it needs to be recorded by a court reporter.

And those are the instances in which a court reporter will definitely be present.

Yes so default prove ups at the those end of end of case prove ups and then if there's an in-camera interview of a child and that's Commissioner stamp that's just that just means when the uh the testimony the interview of the child is with the judge in chambers so it's not an open court and generally that's because there's some sensitivity or confidentiality that needs to be kept so there's a record of it but it's not done in open court thank you so much.

And so you mentioned that there uh across the country there's an issue with hiring court reporters.

Yes.

Um I do or I have heard that um either Kent College or one of the universities actually offers a program for court reporters and they pay for people interested to um become court reporters is there any appetite to investigate that program and to work with colleges andor universities or junior colleges to make sure that that program is offered so that we can include increase the number of folk available for court reporters.

Absolutely if there is an opportunity for us to partner with colleges locally are you aware of the program I am not I'm not personally aware of the program we have um a court reporting office within the Office of the chief judge it is again a somewhat unique office because it is they are state employees so they're part of the state employee union and they're um technically under the purview of the state but we um send them and assign them to courtrooms within the county but they are not our employees but they work closely with us and so I'm not personally aware of that program but it sounds like exactly the kind of thing that we would want to partner with to make sure that there is a pipeline for court reporters because there really really is no substitute for a human court reporter either doing transcription of recordings that they hear or being live in the courtroom and it's in the best interest of the judiciary and everyone involved in the court system to have an accurate record of what happens in court.

And so we would we would love to partner with them if I can follow up with you and get information that would be wonderful.

I find it curious that if there's such a serious need um that there hasn't been more of an appetite to work with the junior colleges to make sure that this is even offered in in um all of the junior colleges and I would even uh go so far as to say some of the high schools I know that at one point in time Wales high school had a a law program and that you know I'm always pushing the viability of of public schools and to me this would be one of those things that young people could get trained in and leave high school andor junior college and have a viable income so um I I think it's worth investigating and and partnering.

You also mentioned that um everything you said and then you said that um you could rec you could record there are instances in when you can record and so I was just kind of curious about what is that recording um and what is the technology that you said is not yet I mean we're they're prepared to put our children in front of computers to teach them.

Um and what is the technology that you said is not yet.

I mean, we're they're prepared to put our children in front of computers to teach them.

So I'm curious as to what technology is not yet available that is that is not up to speed.

Um or is not adequate to record court cases.

Understood.

Um the technology that's currently in use.

So we have we are have the ability to zoom record.

So the judge in a courtroom would turn on the Zoom capability.

We have um recording equipment, it's the OWL system.

The I I'm not I'm not a tech person, so I'm gonna do my best to describe it to you in a way that I understand it, which is there is a system that amplifies sound and voice within a recording system within the courtroom, and then it's recorded via Zoom.

So the judge would open up Zoom, turn on the recording, the recording equipment in the courtroom would then pick up all the sound.

Um I'm just gonna describe to you my understanding of the issues, which is that you can't always identify the speaker.

Sometimes the sound is not um adequate enough to make a complete record.

Um, and so there are I would say that the issue is is that the both the sound of the equipment and the ability to like a live record court reporter, if they don't understand what someone says, say excuse they say excuse me.

Can you repeat that?

I want to get that on the record.

Uh the zoom recording doesn't the the there's not that capability, and so we are there is a gap between the technology that currently exists and the best practice.

And when we're not there, we're not able to make an accurate court record, and without an accurate court record, we wouldn't have that be the record, the official record of the court.

Yeah, explain that.

So I'm sorry, what the video you can't give up.

Right.

So yes, so thank you, Commissioner and I.

There's also um there are rules about what can and can't be shared, right?

So it used to be a court reporter would take notes, right, and then they would transcribe the notes.

So the audio and video under Supreme Court rule is kept within the purview of the court reporter.

So the court reporter maintains that, and you cannot share it out.

So you cannot share an audio or a video, you have to share a transcript.

And so uh a human court reporter has to make that transcript and make sure it's accurate because they are they are as an official uh uh uh an employee of the court verifying that that record is accurate and can be used.

And so a recording is not a substitute for a transcript.

I I think I understand.

How far away do you think we are in this in um industry from being able to be more exact?

Like what efforts are being made um relative to those who do operate in technology to say, hey, this is not best practices, but we are really close to being able to have more exact um software that will pick up um this in and um so that we can have a more accurate record.

Again, I'm out of my depth here, but I'll do my best to answer, which is I understand the director of our IT department is on Supreme Court committees that investigate this every all all the time.

They're continuously investigating at that level statewide, what technology can be used to um bridge this gap because it exists in all counties in the state of Illinois and nationwide.

And so our IT director participates in those committees, gives um information about how it would affect Cook County or could be beneficial, and um we participate in all of those.

But aside from that, I don't have an estimate of timeline.

I don't know the answer.

I can certainly talk to my IT director and have him respond to you in writing with where where we are.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I only have two more questions.

You mentioned training.

I wanted to know is the training mandatory.

Is the training mandatory?

I'm gonna defer to Hannah here.

The training is mandatory, it's a two-day mandatory training.

If people do not participate in the training, they are not added to the list.

It's only two days.

It's two eight-hour days, yes.

And these are licensed attorneys, so they're coming in to have the um training in terms of like statutory requirements and how to run an investigation.

I see.

Um do the victims that show up at the Markham have a pending domestic relations case at the daily center, also have the opportunity to file an emergency order of protection to be heard remotely, or is it just at 555?

It's at every district courthouse.

They have the ability to file anybody can go into any courthouse and they can ask to file a petition for emergency order of protection.

That's where the exchange program comes in.

So, yes, if somebody goes to Markham and has a downtown D case, then they will transmit that to us, and then in the presiding judge's office, and then the presiding judge's office staff handles getting it before the regularly assigned judge, and they zoom in with that regularly assigned judge.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Almaya.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

I know we've um had multiple conversations even offline.

So I'm truly appreciative of all you answering a lot of these questions.

I do want to comment specifically on the technology.

Um we know technology advances every every day.

It's constantly changing.

I do um want to just uplift one of the things that even in the advocacy world people talk about, and it's the fact that technology has not caught up with we we see life, you know, uh captioning and a lot of this that technology may be able to pick up, but there's certain components that don't take into consideration uh different uh voice.

We always say that like technology is really racist in many ways, right?

So I think that there's a lot of components that we need to figure out how to hopefully get more people to develop the technology that is accurate for us to have a recordings that we have full faith in or transcripts that we have full faith in.

And I would like to just make a plug, right?

For a lot of our high school um, you know, people of color that are looking into technology, these are fields that we need people in as well to develop these systems so that we are in a good place here to really be able to advance um and be um in a way where our uh court systems are working for everybody that comes to them.

So I just wanted to kind of say that.

Um one of my questions was in regards to the training.

I appreciate um you know the clarity on that.

Um, how many uh years um do you see on average that a court uh sorry, a judge in um domestic relations court kind of is and the reason why I'm asking is often when you do the trainings, um you know, if if there's a high turnover, I I can foresee that that could be an issue.

But if you have somebody that understands, has knowledge and is able to kind of be there longer, they're able to have a little bit more experience.

I wonder with the impact on some of these cases.

So I don't know if you have that data, but I'd be interested in knowing if if you know, if we have an average of how many um judges are in um domestic relations.

So are you asking for sorry, just for clarification the length that judges are serving?

I don't have that data.

That's certainly something we can get back to you just on an anecdotal note.

Um there's low turnover rate in domestic relations once they are appointed to the bench.

Typically they're staying on the bench for a number of years, but that's something that we can certainly get back to in writing.

Yeah, thank you.

And then my again, some of my questions have already been answered.

But if some if a GL is reported to the ARDC, do we have a length in which they get a response?

Um, do we know what that looks like?

Because I know some of these cases may be lengthy, but some of them may be quick.

And if there is a request, you know, Hannah, to your to your point earlier about requesting of if a you know GL either is being switched or if there is that request.

I'm just wondering if they're um, you know, the process and how that how long that could take and whether that's different for GALs than it is for our regular attorney.

I don't think that they distinguish between complaints against GALs and complaints against other types of attorneys, so it's not an expedited process.

I don't have any insight into the length of time of an average ARDC complaint.

And then I don't have the full understanding of what the again the process, so I'm not sure.

Is there an appeal process of sorts?

You know what?

I just I just don't know that much about the RDC process.

We would have to have to get that information too.

Can I talk to you both of you offline and then figure that out?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner McCaskill.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, more two comments than questions.

Um verbatim technology program.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but they try and court reports.

It is a certified program.

It is an active program going on now.

So I would uh suggest just kind of take a look at that.

I think that's an option.

And then with regard to the GALs, have we made any effort to join the National CASA and GAL program?

Because they do provide free services, free volunteers.

It's in 49 states.

I have to check to find out why we aren't utilizing it.

But it does exist, it's very active, headquartered out of Seattle, Washington, and um they have offices in uh Atlanta and so forth.

So there is an alternative to us paying fees because I think it's detrimental for us to continue to accumulate fees and then possibly place our parents in prison for their inability to pay.

And then in today's market and what's going on in our current climate, it's disingenuous to try and say that you can estimate how much a person can afford to pay because you actually don't know.

So their salary does not actually reflect their reality.

And we know that based on our current property tax situation.

So we know that in some cases people they may make 100,000, but they're actually only bringing home 45 after whatever.

So we want to take that into consideration as well.

So the CASA and GAL that you're referring to, I believe you're referring to the juvenile sector of CASAS and GAL.

So we are a separate faction of GALs.

Can you do that?

Is there an alternate?

No.

So there's a that's a different um that's a different statute that people practice under, and that's a different create it.

See, it's it's it's easy to say what does not apply.

My question is can you do it?

And the answer is yes.

So the question is what steps do we need to take and what will and exactly what effort will we make because we know it exists because it's working.

So if it's on the juvenile side, the criminal side, it really doesn't matter.

The question is, can we do it?

And the answer is yes, we can, should we choose to.

So what steps do we need to take so that we can start looking at utilizing the CASA program for domestic relations and domestic violence?

I think yeah, I think the first step would be to talk talk to talk to you, talk to other legislators about how we could do that, and then it would be a matter of funding.

Absolutely.

Okay, so and I add that to your list.

Okay.

Thank you both.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners, any other questions?

Chairman Daly.

Thank you for your presentation and explaining really the uh as you outline what the uh issues are in reference to the judges as well as the appointed attorneys.

In the beginning, you mentioned there's two separate divisions.

One looks at the judges, one looks at the like court appointed individuals who uh and in that example.

Do we know any individuals, the percent of any individuals who were removed were removed from a case?

From the GAL list, Commissioner?

Yes, there have been GALs who have been removed from cases.

And is it a do we have any idea of the percent?

Is it a um I do not have a person for you?

No, no.

But is that public information?

That's public information because you will see that there is a um there's an order that essentially withdraws the GAL from the case.

You can certainly see that on the individual court dockets.

But is there a summary anywhere where an individual has been removed from a case and then reappointed to another?

I do not have that information.

No, no, that's that's not publicly available at this point.

No.

It's not publicly available, no.

Okay.

Because we do get the court orders as you know it, they appear and the members know in the finance agenda every month.

Yeah.

Oh, so they are the court order, you see there are the orders of orders of protection or whatever.

Yeah.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Lowry.

Thank you, Chair.

Just very briefly.

I just want to note um thank you for the presentation.

And I also want to acknowledge the good work of of the division and uh uh judge uh Judith Rice just does an excellent job as as do all the others.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from any other commissioners?

Commissioner, please.

I I know that under DR you have a different presiding judge, but at DV you do have uh presiding judge uh Rice, and so I call upon the chief judge to make sure that when she moves on that we get just as incredible of a chief uh judge over at the uh DR division.

Um I interned there uh when I was in law school, so um I actually yesterday.

Almost two years ago now.

Oh December of twenty-four was my end date.

Uh but I did have a question.

I I know this might be a more DR-related question, but at the time um there had been some like new higher states' attorneys being sent over and dealing with domestic uh violence cases, and I'm wondering if those issues persist or um are those cases now moving more uh smoothly and you know individuals with better experience are taking those on.

I I certainly don't want to speak for the state's attorney's office, especially because they're right here and can speak for themselves, but I do think a lot of effort has gone into improving all of the processes at domestic violence.

We work together very closely with the other county stakeholders.

Um there are uh I believe quarterly or monthly stakeholder, you know, multidisciplinary team meetings where we talk about these sort of gaps and how we can fill them.

And so um I I I will defer to them in in terms of their particular program, but um just for everyone's awareness and knowledge, we do work together very well with our other stakeholders to um improve how people experience the court.

I appreciate it, and thank you uh for uh coming forward today.

Thank you.

Your microphone.

Your microphone.

Thank you.

Um, with regard to looking up the uh attorneys that have been dismissed, it's just on the ARDC website.

It's just a search there.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Oh my God.

All right.

Any other commissioners, any other questions?

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please make sure you send those information to the chair.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we're gonna have uh the sheriff's office and the state's attorney's office.

Someone from the sheriff's office.

Yeah, come on out.

Hopefully, you won't be as long.

Oh my God.

Um, they don't have slides.

So who you can go first.

Let's do the sheriff first.

Yeah, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Chair, there was a correction that Judge Judith Rice is over domestic violence, and Judge Regina Sceniccio is over domestic relations.

Thank you.

Thank you for correcting that.

I think Commissioner Miller said the same thing, didn't you?

Yeah.

Ladies.

Please introduce yourself and thank you.

Whoever wants to go first.

Go ahead.

Next time I'm going first.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Please do.

Uh thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you to the board for having us again here today.

Uh thank you.

A little closer.

Okay.

Um, thank you, Commissioner Miller, for convening this very important hearing and inviting us to speak here.

I know the board is very short on time, so with respect for the board's time, we'll keep it quick today.

My name is Git Tunayek.

Um, I serve as deputy chief of staff for the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Um, I will be giving a very short presentation today on how we are involved in the domestic violence uh response system.

Uh we gave a uh longer presentation to the um City of Chicago Cook County violence against women um task force, which Commissioner Miller again thank you for having us be part of that important group as well.

We were able to explain to them uh to the members of the task force our processes and uh uh also discuss some of our data that we shared yesterday.

Um I'd like to use that same presentation, a very shortened version.

I'll fly through the slides.

However, if there are any questions, even after the hearing, um any of our staff members would be happy to walk you through those.

Um so we can move to this uh first slide now.

Okay.

Um the sheriff's office um is involved in different aspects of the domestic violence response system, and this is just to show that we have the police department that, like any other law enforcement agency, responds to 911 calls, investigates, and presents charges for prosecution.

Um there's the civil process unit that we are have uh heavily discussed yesterday, and I'll discuss today a little bit more.

Uh we also have our victim support services unit that's staffed with domestic violence liaisons.

These uh consist of licensed clinicians, uh 40-hour DV trained staff, bilingual staff, um, and we aim to provide resources to folks filing orders of protection with utilizing some of this staff in the victim support services unit.

Next slide.

Please, thank you.

This is the overview of the protective order process flow, and I don't mean to go too much into detail today.

Um the left side of the slide shows the part of the site is cut off.

I apologize, I'm not sure what's going on.

But um on the left side of the uh process flow is how the order gets entered in court.

We really get involved on the the right side of the uh the slide where we receive our orders from the clerk who transmits the orders to us, the protective orders.

We then attempt service and we serve and enforce remedies included in the orders of protection.

Um so the first thing um our staff does when we receive these uh protective orders from the clerk's office is to enter the uh information into the law enforcement agency data systems database.

We also enter it into our internal databases that we use to track and uh process orders.

Uh one of the systems that we currently use, we just put this into effect a few years ago, is called the grid.

It assigns tasks based on location and workload, enhances response times, and this has dramatically increased our service rates in the past few years.

As discussed yesterday, we did put into effect a bunch of reforms that have reflected in our numbers.

The next slide will be the numbers we discussed yesterday.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So as we spoke yesterday, we attempt service on the same day as much as possible.

So the same day that the orders are issued, we attempt service on the respondent the same day.

At this point in time, our same day service attempt rates are around 73%.

We try to make two attempts within 24 hours of issuance and three attempts within 72 hours of issuance of the orders.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

And here's where we stand today in terms of successful service.

When orders are successfully served, we have served 56.7%.

And this is for the period of November 1st of 2025 to February 28th of 2026.

We received a total of 6,212 orders, and of those 56.7% orders were successfully served.

This includes service by personal service by our civil process staff and also by other means.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

And this is something we discussed yesterday the barriers to service.

And we we discussed how respondents sometimes cannot be located, the addresses may not be accurate.

We do rely heavily on the addresses provided by the survivor in the paperwork that we receive from the clerk's office.

And based on the data, the same data for the reporting period that I showed you, the 56.7% service rate.

And for the not served orders, as you can see, we've attempted them almost five times on average.

92.9% of the orders that did not get served in that reporting period were due to no contact with the respondent, which as I discussed yesterday was the biggest barrier to service.

However, we still strive to get over those barriers by using a lot of technological tools, integrating intelligence into our operations, et cetera.

We are the one of the largest agencies in the United States with the volume of orders that we process.

And it's not uncommon for other agencies to face the same barriers.

We're constantly trying to research new ways to figure out how we can improve service rates.

We try to find if other jurisdictions of similar size are doing something differently.

We had to find any ideas that we have not implemented, but we're open and always trying.

Thank you.

So as I said, we've implemented in the last few years a lot of reforms.

I just laid out a timeline here.

Just very quickly, starting in 2023, we added additional deputies.

We integrated intelligence, which means that our staff, our sworn staff will use all lawful databases available to them to try to see if alternative service addresses exist.

As I said, the grid app, which won an award in 2024 for technical innovation for serving the community.

This was a law enforcement award.

And we've implemented a few more reforms as well, and we continue to do so.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

I did want to mention Karina's law here in the data pertaining to Karina's law implementation.

This was a very important piece for us starting last year.

And here's the data on Karina's law.

Since the implementation date, which was May 11th of 2025 to May 9th of 2026, the total number of orders we received was 1,526.

Of those, we were we served 844 surrender orders, which is surrender at the time of service by the civil process unit.

We had we received two seizure warrants for execution by our police department.

Just to remind everyone, seizure warrants are the court orders seizure warrants to be executed by the agency that deals with the service calls in their jurisdiction.

So the two orders that we received were for the unincorporated areas that we are responsible for.

Out of the enforced orders, we recovered 75 firearms total.

Um, and just a note that not every respondent served with the order may own a firearm or a FOIA card or a concealed carry license and may not have a firearm to surrender at the time of service.

Next slide, please, thank you.

And I'm almost done.

Um I just wanted to uh mention that all of the efforts that we put in take a lot of uh different units in our office to put together.

We have our tech ops unit, which is uh basically the Bureau of IT.

They uh implement procedural improvements, so the grid app would have been the tech tech ops unit.

Um, all these numbers that you see on the screen, that's not easy to pull.

A lot of this is manual data entry and auditing manual data entry is just as hard.

However, these people look make it look easy.

Um in addition to answering my million questions because I'm always looking for the big picture.

So Office of Data Sciences and Analytics are the experts or analysts that are giving us the numbers and they're manually counting.

Um they make it look easy.

And um finally we have the quality improvement and accountability unit that takes care of making sure these improvements are working, coming back and checking.

Okay, we made uh an improvement last month, how's it going, and then how's uh how's it going in the future and making sure that those improvements are working?

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

Um and uh I wanted to go through the initiatives that we have coming up in the future, we're working on currently, but I'm not going to take up any more of the board's time.

I just want to mention that in addition to the efforts that our internal units put, um, a lot of these reforms would not be possible without the input and collaboration with of external uh entities and stakeholders, um, one of which is here today, the Office of the Chief Judge, um especially uh presiding judge, just uh Justice Right, Justice Judge Rice, um, and uh her senior counsel, uh Renata Steele were very instrumental in uh in helping us put these reforms together.

And then there's the survivors and domestic violence advocates that continue to work with us uh diligently on coming up with solutions.

Um of these solutions do include digitizing a lot of forms as Commissioner Daly had noted uh yesterday.

So those are all the reforms, and I think the last slide is me being done.

Okay.

Um I I did um I left this in there.

Um we did invite the task force members to walk through our serve uh civil process unit processes to get a better idea.

I would extend that in uh invitation here to everybody.

Um and then finally just end with saying that we are committed to listening, um, modeling best practices and ensuring the safety of survivors.

So if there's any questions, I'm here.

All right.

Um commissioner scams, and then I go on.

I just want to say thank you for your report.

And I know you did a very in-depth overview yesterday as well, and at the city council as well.

So I think we're covering this um in a broad way, but this is just so that we have it on the record for for this hearing.

So thanks for your information.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you so much, and thank you for your presentation.

I have a series of questions.

Um, so you capture racial data on your cover sheet.

Okay, you share the racial data for victims.

So, Commissioner Sams, we actually the sheriff's office does not capture racial data, no.

Okay.

So do you capture what you mentioned the service rate before November?

What was the service rate before November?

Um so over from 2024 to 2025, the service rate uh fluctuated between 55 to I think at some point we did go up to 61%.

But I can follow up and get you that chart.

Okay, thank you.

So, how many body attachments does the sheriff receive annually from domestic relations?

Um that is a question I'm not prepared with, Commissioner, but I can follow up on that.

I did not look at the body attachments.

This is a hearing.

I understand, but we so we prepared for the order of protection service um information, but body attachments did not come up in the resolution, so I will definitely follow up on that.

Well, you just want to know how many were received?

I want to know how many body attachments does the sheriff receive annually from the domestic relations court.

I want to know do you track demographic details by gender, by race, anything like that?

And I want to know how many orders of protection do you receive from the domestic relations court and how many of those orders go to private processors for service?

Okay.

Um some of these questions may be um a clerk's office or office of chief judge question, but I will confirm that and get back to you on who to contact.

Oh, so please correct me if I'm out of order for asking these are not related to to the sheriff's department.

So uh the body attachments, if they come to us for um uh execution or for finding someone, I maybe they are related to us.

Um as far as the demographic details go, the paperwork is filled out in court, it comes from the clerk's office.

Um we do receive the paperwork, and I believe that we don't see petitioners' um demographic details on there, but I will confirm that.

But the clerk would be the best place to contact for any uh demographic details that they keep.

And then as far as how many orders of protection are received from domestic relations court, I will check with our staff if our internal database differentiates orders.

We get all the orders from the clerk's office.

So I'll have to check if they differentiate how many came from domestic relations courts and how many came from DVC, or do they all come together?

I'll check on that.

And the second part of that question you had, I believe was uh how many of those go through private private process servers.

That's definitely something we would not know because if we are not receiving those orders for service, um private process servers don't fall under us.

That would be a clerk's office question as well.

Okay, so does the clerk verify the internal information about the racial stuff?

The first set of my questions that comes to the clerk?

The orders uh get processed through the clerk, they get transmitted from the clerk to us.

So the clerk would have all the orders.

I don't believe the demographic details are captured, but I would like to confirm with the clerk's office.

Okay.

And I'm not sure if this is your office or not, but I know that the the victims are are our majority black women, and I'm just curious about any services that your department provides, and I'm curious about anything that you all may offer relative to community that might be proactive.

I know that there's a community service center on division near Western, but I see it closed quite a bit, and I'm just curious there are opportunity for there to be some services offered through that entity that that might address this.

Commissioner, I'm so glad you asked that question because in flying through the slides, I did not completely state what our victim support services unit does.

Um the staff that works with in the victim support services unit, they not only help with um you know verifying addresses for the purpose of serving the orders of protection, they also ask the survivor do you need anything?

Do you need safety planning assistance?

Do you need resources?

Do you need um us to help you find referrals for housing and things like that?

Um they work hand in hand hand with the petitioner in contacting an advocate if the petitioner is comfortable doing so.

It's all petitioner or survivor-led, whatever is the comfort level of the survivor, we try to provide those resources to them or the linkages to resources.

We have in the past um had partnerships with uh generous entities and been able to provide um cell phones to survivors when they need them, um, or Uber rides and things like that.

Um hygiene items from stores uh like Ulta.

Um so every every now and then we find somebody who can partner with us to provide those resources, but our CRC unit, which is a community resource center, does work um on resources for a larger um uh a larger group in the community, not just survivors of domestic violence, but they help uh unhoused individuals and other individuals who need help.

So CRC is also available to provide those services.

Um we did definitely don't see our job as just serving a piece of paper to a survivor.

We see our job as serving and protecting and providing resources where we can.

Thank you for that.

But um you say every now and again, I think that was the term.

Is there not an official relationship that you have with uh with a cell phone company or various entities that is a that is a uh contractual relationship that you all have so that you could would necessary provide cell phones or cell phone services to uh victims or so what do you mean when you say every now and again?

So whenever we have somebody who is able to give us those cell phones, we do provide them.

We don't have a contractual relationship.

We don't have like a paid relationship.

It's um it's those are items are being donated.

So when we find somebody who can donate the items, we definitely uh do that.

And then as far as cell phones go, um, we do have um cell phones that uh we just have access to.

And uh we started a pilot program a year or two ago, and we used utilize those phones.

I can get you the and I am not prepared with the exact numbers right now, but I can get you that information about the pilot program, how many phones were given out, and what years that was Yeah, is that you said it was a pilot, so is it still going on or no?

I believe it's still going on, but I would not want to confirm just yet without asking my staff.

I see, thank you.

Yep.

All right, just to be any other questions from Commissioner Eggnar.

Okay, we're good.

Any other questions from any other commissioners?

Seeing none.

Um just for clarification, our request from commissioners comes to the chair.

Oh, got it.

And then we'll we'll just send that.

We'll do.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

And uh Q Warren's were you speaking?

Cook County State's attorney.

I know, but did you have a presentation?

No presentation.

Okay, all right.

Did you want to say a few things?

Um, yes, please.

Sure.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

My name is Eva Voizan.

Uh, I'm the chief of policy and external affairs for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Um, with me today, sitting right behind me is Ann McCord Rogers.

Anne is the uh Bureau chief of our special victims bureau, which includes our domestic violence, um, all of our domestic violence units, both misdemeanor units and felony units.

Um, it also includes units related to sex offenses uh and child abuse offenses, and she is um right behind me, so if we need her, she can step up.

Um, I want to thank you all for including the Cook County State's attorney's office um in this important work and in this important discussion.

Um we do recognize that there is um frequently overlap between the work that we do in domestic violence court and um issues that arise in domestic relations court.

Although the state's attorney's office does not have a role to play in the domestic relations sphere.

Um we do understand that there is a great deal of overlap.

Uh we reviewed the resolution before we came in today, and there were three points in the resolution that I wanted to make sure that we addressed.

Um, one of these questions was also asked yesterday by you, Commissioner Daly.

So I just want to make sure that we're clear in our answer.

Um through their clerks, it is our understanding that judges in domestic violence court do have access to the records that exist in domestic relations court, and that would include access to orders of protection that are um issued in that other area.

Um the Cook County State's attorney's office does have access to domestic relations information, and that includes orders of protection in addition to the complaints.

Um, as I indicated yesterday, we have not always had access to those materials.

We do have access now.

Um it is not a perfect system.

The individuals in our office, the states attorneys who have access, um, have access by name.

It is not blanket access.

So we have to ask the clerk's office for specific people to have access to these materials.

However, um we do have a sufficient amount of our staff members who have access, and while that system isn't perfect, um, it is working, and we are able to present the court with relevant information about orders of protection that have been issued uh when that when that need arises.

Um it is very important to us to have that information, particularly in the detention court scenario when we are presenting a hearing to a judge about whether a person is a danger to that individual who has been victimized or to the community.

And I do want to extend an offer to the Chief Judge's office, which we partner with regularly, as well as all of our other partners that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office does take training of our own personnel very seriously.

And we are willing and able to assist in any training that we could help provide about the work that we do to our partners in the justice system.

With those statements, I'm willing to answer any questions that you may have about uh the state's attorney's office's role in any of these issues.

Chairman, just one follow up.

So access means the judge.

Here she has the ability to look at it.

Do they?

And that's my concern because I've heard sometimes they are not accessing it.

But they can do that.

My understanding is that they do have access to it, but generally that access would come through the judge's clerk that's sitting next to them in the courtroom.

The clerks are the ones at the bench managing you know the computer system, and they are able to access all the different um areas of the clerk system.

So there is an opportunity for a judge to access that.

Whether each judge has the ability to know time to get is a different thing.

Again, it calls in.

I know the chair uh Don and the chair uh committee has looked at this because there's so much things internal.

So all the judge has to ask the clerk, is there a warrant for this individual?

Correct.

That information should appear in the clerk system.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, ladies.

Thank you.

Now we have the clerk of the circuit court and the public guardian.

Please introduce yourselves and then uh begin speaking.

I'm Sam Williams.

I'm the uh Chief Deputy Clerk of the Domestic Relations Division for the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Mariana Sparabolis.

Thank you.

Um Ramesh Damascete, Deputy CIO, Clercal Circuit Court.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gentlemen.

Do you have a presentation?

Yes.

Do we have his presentation?

Okay.

There you go.

All right.

Thank you.

Whoop, there it is.

Thank you.

Um I appreciate the uh the criminal justice committee hearing.

Um thank you, uh, Chairman Stanley Moore.

And thank you, um, Commissioner Donna Miller.

Uh so um I'm just gonna basically kind of go through uh some of the main points that was in the in the resolutions.

Uh just to make sure that we have uh uh some clarity on those.

Um so you can go to the next slide.

Uh real quick, um, I know we've been here for a while, but so just here are some of the improvements that have happened, or let me also say that these are some of the processes or processes that are already have been in place for several years.

Um we do have overnight OP filings uh in hearings.

Uh the shares uh transmotors reports are sent to our offices uh three times a day.

So we have just created a sheriff's transmitter report.

So every OP or disposition of order protection that is sent to the sheriff's department is created in a report.

As a matter of fact, I just got a report just now while I was sitting over there.

Um all transmittals are sent to the sheriff.

Um and they are once they're sent to the sheriff, they are electronically scanned, so that is kind of a fairly new thing for us to make sure that we have uh uh electronic access to these transmittals.

Um so they are electronically scanned into our share drive for later retrieval if needed, uh, instead of just holding onto paper copies and trying to store those away.

Um we also emails uh are sent to the DRD uh division attorney every time that an OP is filed uh in the domestic relations division.

Uh so therefore it's connected to a DK, so we send that to them uh so that they can make sure that they uh the judge is aware so we can get have it uh reviewed and placed for the judge that day.

Also, uh each uh court clerk IMs uh are DRD management staff uh when they have any late OPs to be processed and when they are done, or if they uh just don't have any OPs at all in their courtrooms.

Matter of fact, I just got it right now.

So in our in our teams, I am.

They are literally each court clerk is either letting us know I have no OPs or I do have an OP, I do have a disposition order.

That way our management staff can make sure that we are holding them accountable and we are staying on top of each thing that is uh that is coming out of the uh uh domestic relations division for domestic violence.

Um and then all documents are scanned to the system and they are restricted, of course, until service uh per the Illinois Capal statutes.

They are also housed and secured for later retrieval uh if physical copies are needed.

Okay.

Um so our next slide.

Uh yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so as far as the Guardian Malitum and the public uh guardian appointment, I think the uh uh the attorneys for uh for our office or OCJ that is part of the OCJ.

Um so they've uh already kind of go with the office of the chief judge.

Okay.

We can go to the next one.

Again, the assignments that is that is really solely really really the the responsibility of the office of the chief judge, so not the clerk of the circuit court.

Um next slide.

All right, so financial uh financial obligations and fee structures.

Um specifically, we have uh the clerk of the circuit court, of course, there are fee structures for us as far as filing of cases uh that is based upon state statute or based upon the uh Illinois Supreme Court.

Um so but statutory fees, but of course, for order protections, currently there are no fees for order protection when it comes to us.

When it comes to filing with the clerk of the court, if you come in and you want to file an order protection, there's no fees for us.

There's there's also uh the the new fee structure that was created in July 1st of 2019.

I remember that specifically.

Uh they also took away fees for respondents.

Respondents used to have to file.

If you are a respondent on order protection, they used to have to still pay an appearance fee.

Now respondents do not have to pay uh an appearance fee.

So they can also file.

So those are so currently there's no fee structure for us when it comes to filing on order protection cases.

All right.

Um next.

Uh court report court court reporters of again that that's uh a function of the clerk of the circuit court.

Um they're kind of managed through the office of the chief judge.

All right, next.

The GAL and attorney oversight again.

That's uh that's really kind of uh order that's uh through the Office of the Chief Judge, not necessarily through the clerk of the circuit court.

But we will keep uh if there is a GAL appointed, of course, we have codes to put into the system to make sure that that order, based upon the order, we will put that into the computer system.

Uh the next slide, please.

Training and domestic relations court.

So the clerk of the circuit court has conducted OP training as and uh OP training for our staff, in addition to other training, of course, including customer service hearings.

Uh we've also conducted training and conduction in conjunction with the Office of the Chief Judge.

So we work very closely with the Office of Office of the Chief Judge, the domestic are our DRD division attorneys, uh, even with the Carinians law.

There was very something high on the it was very high on the importance level for us to make sure that we were all learning the same thing.

The clerk's office, and seeing that we are the first people that people are going to see when they come in, that we're all very much aware of how to handle these cases and handle the filings.

Next slide.

Um as you the sheriff's department is up there, of course, serving of order protections is uh clearly is solely responsibility of the sheriff's department.

Uh of course, there's no fee for that as well, and it is not the responsibility of the filer or the victim to take an order protection to uh when it's entered in court, is not their responsibility to take it to the sheriff's department, it's the clerk of the circuit court's responsibility.

So we do that every time, and that is part of that transmitter process that we'll put on the transmitter and send to the uh sheriff's department.

Um also data uh is recorded and coded by the uh court clerks if there is a respondent that is served in open court.

So if it if a respondent is there, if both parties are there, then it is our job as the clerk of the circuit court to record the respondents served in Oval Court.

We'll make sure we stamp the order and then we make sure that we put that in the in the computer system.

And that is something that does not need to go to the sheriff, other than maybe to put into leads if we need to.

Um next slide.

Okay, and then communication of records.

All judges have access to restricted documents and orders uh on our case management system.

So that is something that of course is vitally important, of course, that they are able to see what we are able to see.

Okay.

And that's pretty much it for the presentation.

Again, I'm saying Williamson, thank you, uh, committee.

If you have any questions.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to follow up, and all the orders.

Are they entered electronically or manually?

I'm sorry, which one?

The any of the orders.

Say like your are they or or uh manually and then do they have to go back to your office office and enter it electronically?

Yes.

So they are entered electronically.

And here's the thing.

When we do, we have an extra thing put in place too in domestic relations.

When uh when a person comes in, if they have the physical paperwork, uh they can either have it through e-filing or uh through electronic filing, which has made the process even much more quicker.

Um so if they follow through e-fileing, all we literally do is get a hold of the division attorney and say, hey, we have this OP uh this order protection on this D case, here's the case number, blah, blah, blah.

We'll even uh attach those documents to the email as well.

It's just kind of a double type of.

But those are uh so if a warrant is issued, uh again, that would be electronically or manual.

That is done, that is done electronically uh training.

In the courtroom.

In the in the courtroom.

Yes, there's paperwork that is that is signed in the courtroom.

So that's so if paperwork is done in the courtroom, then does it have to be back to the be brought back to the office and entered electronically?

They are entered electronically, and then it is the paperwork is still brought back to the it's uh sent to the sheriff's department, and it's also it can it is sent to the sheriff's department and it's also electronically sent to us.

If it's uh if we're talking about warrants now, we're talking about the Corina's law.

The Korean's law, we have an extra thing in place for uh whatever if there's a search warrant and there's a police agency that needs to be contacted.

What we do is we scan that particular search warrant into the system, and then we send that specifically.

We have addresses of all the police agencies for Chicago, of course, Chicago PD, and then all the suburban police agencies, and we send them an electronic copy of that search warrant.

So uh that's a concern, but in the courtroom, do you have the ability to issue it electronically?

So there's not that delay.

If not, I'm sorry, we could get back to the chair.

I do have to do that.

Yeah, we do have to get this information on the dashboard is shared with the sharing of information.

Sorry, come here.

The dashboard information that you is shared information for all you share with other agencies?

Yep, yep.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

That's okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Um and thank you for your comprehensive overview and going point by point with the resolution that helps us all make sure we're staying on track.

Um just my one question about when we're filing when an emergency order protection is filed and in domestic relations court.

You get that data, correct?

Yes.

Separate.

So is there a way that we can use that data to better allocate resources?

We're getting into budget hearings now, and if there's something else that's needed, uh this would be the time to let us know, or or what's your opinion on that at this point?

Yeah, we should be able to put away the the doctor request and started collecting the details.

Yes.

You should be able to interest it.

Okay.

That's my only question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who is next?

Any other commissioners, any other questions?

Commissioner Stamps.

Take your time.

All right, thank you.

Do you have an order of protection data and the rate of service information?

Um do you guys have how many body attachments on women that had previous orders of protection?

Hello, Commissioner.

Uh it's a two-part question, I am thinking.

The the first part of it is available data.

Can you speak directly into your mic, sir?

Yeah, sorry.

Yep.

Thank you.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, this is the first time I'm coming in and answered that.

We're nice people.

Thank you.

You have a met Bill Lowry.

No.

It's about it's about me and me feeling like a little anxious.

I'm good.

So the the data is available on our the clerks dashboard, uh the OP sub that side of stuff.

But the body attachments is not available as of now, and we need to get back to you on that.

If any specific requests is there.

Did you say you were gonna have to get back to me on something?

No, if there is a specific request you would like to place the place with us on the on the attachment, body attachments, we need to look into it.

The dashboard has on the OP servings and other stuff.

Okay.

Thank you.

I guess the question is are we jailing victims?

Like with these about like people who have already had these issues.

Are we so you mean uh to clarify?

Are we jailing victims that have a uh a body attachment entered against them?

Is that yeah that's the question?

So based upon whatever the court order is is saying, then of course, as the clerk of the court, we are responsible for just entering that information into the court system.

Um yeah, from that particular point.

Normally there's a private attorney or someone that will deliver those body attachments to the uh sheriff's department.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Degnan.

Thank you, um, Chair, and thank you for being here today.

Um I had sent a data request to your office a number of months ago, and I did receive a response to it, but there was a lot of data that were it uh that was missing, about half the data was missing from that data request.

So I was curious about um if I'm gonna receive the rest of the data.

They were requests about short form notifications, alias summons, um, and the numbers of orders with full service and remedies, excuse me.

Um interim stocking and no contact orders, how many filed, how many were granted.

Um I was wondering if you keep if you keep this data, um, and if you do keep it, how I can get a copy of it.

The the data goes through the lot of reviews and the the data is collected and we it's being reviewed, and we should be coming to you very soon on those details, Commissioner.

Um, you know, usually the process that we as commissioners follow is that for a data request like this, it has to go through the it's been requested to go through the office of the chief judge, then they approve it and then they send it to you.

And so that's already been done.

They already approved all the requests that we had.

Correct.

So and then um I had followed up a number of times, then I did receive a partial response, and then I have I have emailed back and been in contact to ask for the rest of the data.

So do you know when we'll receive the the remainder of the data?

Plenary stocking, no contact orders, interim civil, no contact orders, um, and a number of other firearm restraining orders.

Do you know when we'll get the remainder of the the data?

We have captured the data per your request, it's being reviewed and validated, and then we want to send it to you.

But it's it's the it's during the review.

I mean, it's in the process of review and validation before it we send to you.

Okay.

So it's it's been uh quite a bit of time.

Do you can you give me a ballpark of a time when I can expect to receive this information?

I say that because with Commissioner Miller and me and Commissioner Anaya have been working on this along with a number of outside organizations on domestic violence and bringing awareness, and those outside organizations have made um offers to the county to work with us to provide funding to provide additional resources, but that funding can't come to the county without us getting the data to them.

And so, you know, with the the conclusion of Commissioner Miller's domestic violence task force wrapping up here in June and into July, I'm afraid we're gonna move lose some of the momentum that we've gained.

Um especially with these outside groups that have offered um money to the county to support and help violence survivors and really to help fill the gaps of some of these issues that the county has faced.

It's really important that we that we get the data, that we share the data that we can in order to acquire that funding and really help the situation.

Yeah.

Um I'll take this request and come back to come back to you on the on the the dates and when we can give you, but it's it's there.

We are reviewing it and should be any time giving it to you.

Okay.

Well, I think you know, my point is time is of the essence.

So I appreciate that.

My office will be in contact with you on Friday to follow up.

You know, we have kind of re retooled some of the data in our in our own um chart format.

So we'll send you what we have, and that should include the data that we'd like to see the remaining data, but um I'll look forward to getting that from you in the next few weeks.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stamps.

This this is this might help.

Is there any situation where people are being jailed because of their inability to pay any fee associated with court?

Is there any situation where that's occurring?

No.

Okay.

No, um absolutely not.

Okay.

I even go directly with my staff.

I'm like, you know, just unsure, you know, we are not stopping.

Here's the thing.

We'll even if there was a fee owed on it.

I know this this hearing is specifically about domestic violence, uh, but if the other filings uh like domestic relations and uh uh you know a divorce and child support, even if there is a fee that's owed uh on something that is owed through the clerk of the circuit court, we still cannot deny those filings.

You know, it is really up to you know uh we can record that the fee is owed, but we are not gonna stop anybody from doing uh their due diligence to file in the clerk.

Thank you so much for that.

Chair or or uh Commissioner Miller, are the GAL, the people that represent the Chief Judge Office, are they still here or they're not they're gone?

Yeah, they're still here.

May I ask them a question?

Yeah, can you take the podium there, please?

Thank you.

Yes, hello, Commissioner.

Yes, I just wanted to know is there any um situation where um families, whether it's the the husband or wife, um are being arrested or or serving time as a result of their inability to pay a fee, like GAL fees or anything like that.

Uh this is Kate Nolan, Office of the Chief Judge.

So, Commissioner, for inability to pay, there's a distinguishing, that's the distinguishing part.

So for inability to pay, no, there is not a time when someone would be put um in custody for inability to pay.

There are circumstances where a judge may determine that someone has the ability to pay, they're ordered by the court to pay in child support cases, and they do not pay, even though they have the ability to pay.

Who determines their ability to pay?

The judge in their case determines the ability to pay.

And how often go ahead, Commissioner.

How often is that the case where people may have to be arrested or serve time or I'm not sure of the right language because of their they're not paying a GAL fee?

And if the GAL is about what's in the best is best interest of the child, and the mother or dad gets arrested but has to go to jail because their inability to pay or did not pay, how does that serve the child?

So, Commissioner, the way the statutes are written, um the judge will take into consideration.

So the the legislature has determined that it is in the best interest of the children for parents to contribute.

Part of the contribution may be order of child support.

If there's an order of child support and the one of the parties is found in contempt of that order, there would be a contempt hearing on the order.

The judge would take into consideration the financial ability of the of the person to pay.

If the person is determined to be able to pay but unwilling to follow the court order, there's a process that's followed.

And I I want to stress that this is a very rare and extreme occurrence.

It does not happen in the majority of the cases.

If a person, despite their ability to pay, refuses to follow the court order and pay, one of the penalties that's possible is for that person to be sent to jail on the contempt until they what it's called in the law is purge the contempt.

And what that means is that they follow the court order.

They correct the contempt.

That's the process that's allowed under law, and judges do use that in extreme and rare cases when they have found over time and after multiple hearings that there is an ability to pay, but an unwillingness to follow the court's order.

And I believe you said child support.

I'm not I'm not talking about child support.

I'm talking about in the cases of the GAL fees.

The GAFAL fees are also included in the statutory.

The GAL fees are going to a private attorney.

The statutory scheme also, so the legislature has allowed that practice for those fees as well.

They have determined that that is part of the legislative structure that is part of the system.

So, yes, those those types of fees are allowed.

And again, I just want to stress that these are rare occurrences.

I would be curious to know when those reoccurrences are occurring and with whom.

So is there access to that information?

So the data on these cases would be held with the clerk's office.

The clerk has the court data in the docket.

And any requests that came in as Commissioner Degnan suggested if there's a request from the commissioners, the chief judge would approve that request.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions from any other commissioners?

No.

Well, let's thank the uh clerk of the circuit court.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

And let's welcome the public guardian.

Hello.

How are you?

Good evening.

All right, please introduce yourself and then uh you may begin.

Do you have a presentation or no?

No present no presentation.

Thank goodness.

I mean, oh okay.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, commissioners, justice partners, and community stakeholders.

On behalf of the public guardian, Charles Goldberg, I'm Alpa Patel, the Chief Deputy.

Thank you, Commissioner Miller, for convening the task force and this hearing today.

Um, with me is Sarah Hawkins.

She is the director of our domestic relations division as well as a member of your task force, Commissioner Miller.

We want to thank everyone for participating in the proceedings today and being able to be invited to also participate.

Um I'm gonna keep my comments short.

Our domestic relations division provides legal representation as child representative to children whose parents are involved in contested custody matters and visitation disputes.

Currently, the division is staffed by Ms.

Hawkins as the director and five attorneys, as well as two support staff.

All of our cases are by court appointment and are constituted in divorce custody parentage court, primarily at the Daily Center, a few at Markham, and also a few that we've accepted at suburban courthouses.

We're appointed as as you've heard as child representative, and at any given time we represent approximately 800 children in the domestic relation proceedings.

And I share that because not only is there extensive legal knowledge in our domestic relations division, but we there is also access to multidisciplinary resources related to expertise in appellate law, special education law.

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I know.

As well as um child psychology, social work, as well as resources on undocumented um and LGBTQ plus children.

Um we recognize the importance of ensuring that the safeguards are in place for children in highly contested matters that are that are convened in child uh domestic relations proceedings.

And the one thing that the July 2025 um hearings that were convened by this commission made very clear is that there is a critical need for great access greater accessibility to high quality affordable advocacy for children in domestic relations matters.

And in recognition to that, soon after those committee hearings, the public guardian Charles Goldberg reached out to Chief Judge Evans at the time, outlining the necessary staff we would need to be able to expand and um have a greater reach in being appointed as child representative in domestic relations proceedings.

In January of this year, Chief Judge Beach asked us for details on that proposal, and in March of this year, we were given the green light to hire three more attorneys, a social worker and case manager to add to our domestic relations division to expand our ability to be appointed as child representative in a greater number of cases.

Um we are currently actively recruiting and hope that we will be fully able to expand this initiative.

Um we want to thank Chief Judge Beech for his and his team, Miss Nolan included, as well as the presiding judge Scanichio for their support of this initiative.

Um we're excited to be able to share with you in the future how this additional staff is going to be able to provide additional support for as child representative for children and domestic relations proceedings.

Thank you again for this commission commissioner for convening this committee, and uh we look forward again to being able to share what this is gonna do in terms of our ability to provide greater accessibility to services for children.

Thank you.

And thank you for the opportunity to work on the the workforce.

So the task force, that's really good for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Any questions from any commissioners?

Yes.

All right, let's chair her go first and then to Mr.

Stanford.

Thank you, Chair.

Um and thank you for your presentation.

I just want to reiterate um the importance of you being here.

And this we're saying this, well, I'm saying this to everyone at this point, but since we're going into budget hearings, as we see the need increase for these services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stamps.

Can you help me to understand what is the difference between our guardian at lightem and a public guardian if you're both representing children?

So we are the public guardian's office, and in that capacity, we have three divisions in our office.

So the the largest division being the juvenile division, we are we're court appointed as the attorney and guardian alightum for children.

Guardian alightems can be appointed to anybody who may have diminished capacity.

So you could be you could have a guardian atlightum for an adult who has disabilities.

You can be a guardian item for a child in most instances, that's what we're talking about.

So just to back up, uh Commissioner Stamps, and I hope I'm answering your question, but in the juvenile courts, we are court appointed.

It is statutorily mandated that a child is represented by counsel and a guardian atlightum, which is why um we do have that responsibility in that division.

In the adult guardianship division, we are appointed actually as the guardian for adults with disabilities that where we oversee their financial and personal um needs.

Um and they use and the criteria based on the statute is that they have to have an estate of $25,000 or more.

We use their estates to be able to care for them, and that's our responsibility.

And then in domestic relations, which is the only division that's actually not statutory statutorily mandated for our office, is the one where we were actually sought out to be able to provide the service as child representative in certain cases because of many of the reasons that you've sort of outlined where children do need do need representation and advocacy.

Um and as child representative, our responsibility is to be the advocate for the child.

It is it is an attorney relationship.

There is privilege that is attached to it.

There are we are not expected to testify as a guardian lightem would be in certain situations.

We are not we are not put in the position of being deposed, things of that sort.

And I think the distinction there is quite frankly, it gives a a bit more autonomy autonomy to the representative, the advocate for the child, whereas not so much in other representations.

Well, help me out.

Wouldn't we want that kind of autonomy for all children?

Um I think that that certainly would depend on the circumstances of the family and the children and many of the things that I believe Ms.

Nolan um addressed in terms of the kind of factors that the judges look like look at as to what kind of appointment would be appropriate.

Okay.

So in criminal courts, public defenders are free and provide legal services to county residents.

Yes?

Yes.

Why in civil courts are we charging?

If they are safeguarding children, why is the service not free?

Um that's probably a great question for the legislature's commissioner stamps.

I can certainly say we need to go to Springfield.

I can certainly say, as I pointed out earlier, the only division of our office that is not statutorily mandated is the domestic relations division.

So we do we do charge fees.

We are substantially less expensive than private counsel.

We charge 110 110 dollars.

Yeah, thank you.

It's late.

Um an hour.

110 dollars an hour as child represented versus we're private counsel.

That's a that's so cute.

You said, well, we're pretty reasonable for 110 an hour.

I'm sitting here and I don't get paid 110 an hour.

But understood.

So if you guys are 11 an hour and you're saying that's reasonable, what are the guardian at lightem charging?

What is the range they are?

The average range is three three to three hundred to four hundred dollars an hour.

So you all are charging working class people three to four hundred dollars an hour to represent what's in the best interest of children, and you think that that were they are not biased or or reasonable.

Something is okay.

I just got real emotional.

Let me calm down.

Um that is that is not right.

You are compromising young people when the jud when the guardian items are able to make three to four hundred dollars, then the motivation could appear to be financial.

And so now you got people who are in the middle of some of the worst situations in their lives saying that this person is representing what's in the best interest of children, but they're also getting three to four hundred dollars an hour to say that.

Yeah, and and commissioner that is rife with a criminal element, and which is why I said I want to know which judges are assigning guardian metal items most often, and which GALs are getting assigned most often, because that just sounds to me that that is rife with being compromised.

Commissioner Stamps, I hear what you're saying, and I certainly want to recognize that much of what was discussed at the July hearing last year was part of the reason why Chief Judge Beach and Judge Sceniccio recognize the need for us to expand our division to be able to provide the resources.

And I do want to point out, I recognize saying 110 is reasonable.

I don't mean that by any means to say that that's not that's cheap.

That's not, I mean it's not.

But the reality is we try to work with the families.

There's certainly we accommodate where we can.

But it is part of the.

Let me ask you to discuss because it's late.

I know.

I know they want me to stop.

However, yeah.

On average, how many hours are you all charging?

I you all, the 110 dollar people.

Okay.

So on average, we would probably probably most are billing.

Your billable hours.

That's the so let me make something clear.

We probably don't bill for everything that we do.

That's one of the reasons why we get cases.

Sometimes there are families who don't necessarily have the resources, as you point out, to pay three or four hundred dollars, right?

So we don't bill for everything.

So on average, maybe we may bill for like 10 to 15 hours, but we may actually put in 25, 30 hours of work.

So it is But that's still about 15, 16 on it.

What you're doing.

It could be.

Or it could be significant or it could be significant.

It could be, I would say on average, but it could be significantly.

And let me ask you this.

On average, what is the salary of the women and the men that you all are representing on average?

Are you all on average representing working class to poor working class people, or are you all representing white collar upper middle class people on average?

I don't know that I know that we're not going to be able to do that.

I think you do average salary.

I think you all do know on average what the salaries are of the families that you all are representing.

And I'm not going to allow you all to slide on that to say, I'm not sure.

Yes, you do.

If you've been doing this job a while, you all know on average the families that you all are seeing, because they're assigned to you all for a reason.

So the salaries that these people are making are what on average.

We certainly we will.

Okay, let me ask you this thing.

Sure.

If I said to you, I want you to tell me the families that you saw this year.

I'm not even gonna say in the last two years.

I'm gonna say all of 2026.

And I want you to tell me and calculate what is the average that family was making.

Can you do that?

I don't believe we can, Commissioner.

Why?

It's it's not part of our criteria for accepting the case.

The the considerations that we have for exceptions, ex accepting a case is the family has to live in Cook County, including the child.

At least one of the parents has to be represented by counsel, and the fees that we discussed.

And again, just to just to read it, I'm sorry, don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to be saying I do want to say that as as Ms.

Hawkins pointed out, we work with the families.

It's certainly not as if we are char if somebody can't pay, we recognize that.

It's not as if we're gonna be, as you've discussed earlier with some of the other witnesses seeking body attachments and things of that sort.

So let me ask you this.

Yes.

Given the criteria you just listed, could it be the case that you have a family that's making 45,000 paying 110,000, and you can have a family making 150,000 paying 110,000 dollars, 110 dollars an hour?

Could that be the case given the criteria you just laid out?

It's quite possible, depending on whether we are appointed by the court.

Okay.

Okay.

I'll stop.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counsel.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to be clear on this because I had an understanding, it may be right, it may be wrong.

Isn't a sliding scale utilized?

There's no sliding scale, but as Ms.

Hawkins pointed out, oftentimes we're not charging for all the hours that we're actually working.

Oftentimes there are times that we never collect.

Um and I do want to be clear that this money goes to the county.

Um, but it is you know, we recognize the limitations of the families, yes.

But to the residents of Cook County, I don't think that's pertinent.

All right.

The fact is, and we need clarity.

Is there a sliding scale based on one's income?

If the answer is no, it's no.

It's no.

Is there ability for an individual to have pro bono representation if the answer is no, the answer is no?

But that's the kind of information that the public needs to know.

So not pro bono.

Okay.

And there's no sliding scale.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

I don't know who is first.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Just on that topic.

Um, so how does how is it determined then what hours are billable and what is not billable?

Is that the discretion?

What's the criteria?

I'm going to defer to Ms.

Hawkins because I think she can explain like in the details of any given day what it looks like.

Yeah, I I think it just depends on the case.

Obviously, that we know that are don't necessarily have the ability to pay.

Um and so we work with families.

I think I want people to understand that there are lots of people, we we get lots of cases where people may not necessarily be able to pay like the retainer fee.

So we work with those families.

So maybe someone may not be able to pay the full fee that's charged.

And so we'll try to work with them as much as we can.

We don't call, you know, if we don't collect, we don't collect.

But as um Ms.

Pattel indicated, that the money does go back to the Cook County Treasurer's office.

Yeah, I think you know, just touching back on uh what some of my colleagues are expressing, I think the concern is ultimately there doesn't seem to be a transparent definition or means or standardized you know method to determine who gets that help.

Yeah, exactly.

Um so I I I do think that it would be the benefit of the public knowing you know what decision making, you know, um considerations are had when you determine whether or not this individual gets billed for a certain amount of time, this individual does not.

I understand that there are conversations that are being had, but it's not doesn't sound like it's standardized.

The criteria it does sound subjective.

So I that that was not our intent.

I just want to be clear.

So for example, if Ms.

Hawkins is on the phone with a parent for three hours, and she's and she understands that there is a reasoning to have to do that, we we are not going to bill three hours.

I mean, quite frankly, it would be an hour.

And I'm I'm I'm giving it as an example.

So if there the transparency, I I I hope that the option is either we you know we document every single thing that we do do and uh let the court make the determination on the fees, which certainly we can do if that if that's the concern.

Um Commissioner Aguilar.

Interesting, and thank you, Commissioner Stamps.

Talking about this.

So if the if they cannot continue paying the 110 dollars an hour, is their case dropped?

You say you work with them.

How do you work with them?

So no, we do we don't drop the case because they are unable to pay and have often um I think Commissioner Alguilar, I can't see you, but um the reality is there there are many cases that we are ultimately not able to collect fees on.

Um if you can't collect the fees.

I mean, there are cases that can there because there is a case continued until it's if the case is concluded and we're not able to collect fees, we're not able to collect fees.

We're not gonna be able to do that.

But their case continues.

I not in the sense of the actual child custody case, no.

And just to be clear, we are not gonna keep a case open.

If they don't pay.

We are not gonna do that, no.

That would not be something we would do.

I think that's the issue that we're we're talking about here.

Like, correct?

I maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

Just to be clear, we would not hold up a case from closing or resolving itself simply because we are not getting paid.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

I apologize.

Right.

Thank you.

Uh I think it was Commissioner Daly, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Stamps.

Just for some clarification again.

Your public guardian would be appointed by the court.

Correct.

And then separately is the um the other attorney.

The um DAL.

Yes.

So in your department, your area, you are there is no sliding scale.

There is no sliding scale.

It's a flat fee.

That's been the flat fee for I'd say what?

Set by at least 20 years.

At least 20.

Set by the General Assembly?

No.

Her internally.

It was set, uh honestly, it's way before my time, but it was set.

Um it's been set as at 110 for probably close to 20 years at this point.

So this is set internally.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

I I my understanding.

I I thought there was a sliding scale for this department.

Yes, okay.

I thought there was a Commissioner Miller.

Thank you.

So this discussion alone highlights the need and why we convened the hearings in the first place.

Because we heard from many of those who testified as to the exorbitant fees for GALs and public uh guardians fees.

And although you said that a case would not move on, we heard from many of those who testified that their case was stalled from lack of payment.

And we also heard from people who testified that they were held in contempt of court for lack of payment, which is also not supposed to happen.

So I've also heard from people on both sides.

Just because you have the ability to pay, doesn't mean that you should be charged $8,000 and up, which I've heard of cases of that much for a GAL.

And so I know you're not the GAL, but I'm just putting this all in perspective as to why we have you here and why we need to you know explore these cases.

And although the statute is written outside of our jurisdiction, we can advocate on another level, and I hope all of our colleagues will uh for Springfield to change some of these statutes because many of them have not been touched in 20 years.

As you said, your fees were set 20 years ago, which 20 years ago, 110 was high, and now it's still high.

So um I just want to this is why it's been great to hear from so many people sharing their personal stories as to what happened to them.

And even I made mention to Chief Judge that you know, if these are outlier cases, in some cases they might be, then you know I would love to remedy some of these outlier cases for people who've had long-term cases if that's if that's possible.

So I just wanted to add that context that we've been hearing all of these different things going on for the last year related to these other fees and the fact that there is no sliding scale, and the fact that the fees are determined sometimes exactly by the judge, and the judges are not moving cases forward.

We have heard that many, many times.

And so that's another reason why we want to have continuance um button put on cases as to what's the reason for continuances, and if that's a reason, then we'd be able to compile all that data to say all of these cases were not moved forward because of GAL issues or child issues, and also the disruption in the family.

Many of these cases have prevented uh the victims in many cases from seeing their own children or re-traumatizing their own children to have to go and be in front of an abuser.

So that's right.

This is so thank you to all my colleagues for sitting it out, staying late, and making sure that we're getting to the bottom of certain things, and if we can just help someone along the way, um then that's what we're doing.

And this is not to attack any of the departments that are here.

We want to help you in partnership to fix the situations that best serve the constituents.

That's right.

Good job, everyone.

Any other questions from any other commissioners?

I don't have a question, but there is a statement that there is a opportunity for pro bono, and I would be curious as to how often that is issued, and it is insane to me that you can have a woman making sixty thousand dollars and somebody else making 150,000 dollars and they both got a flat fee.

That is absolutely insane.

So I don't know what the next course of action is, if that's Springfield or whatever the case, but but these families need justice because what it sounded like to me is between this profess this PDF and the GAL is a slush fund for attorneys and judges to go back and forth and pay their friends to represent children who probably don't need to be feeled that many hours to be represented, and then you you put the cherry on top of saying it goes back to the treasurer.

That does not help me as a resident of county, nor as a commissioner to know that these hard working families are being penalized and is paying this kind of money out when this is probably the worst possible time in your life when you are having issues regarding your children.

That is it.

Amen.

On that note, thank you.

Commissioner Miller moves to approve item 25361 as substituted.

Seconded by Commissioner Alma Anaya.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Do we need a roll call or no call?

No roll call.

I just want to remind everybody that we have added all.

Leave that at all at all.

Leave the lad all present all opposed.

No motion carries now.

Commissioner Miller will move to adjourn this meeting.

Chairman.

Yes.

Chairman.

Salro help me with my mic.

Move it up.

So remember, we had one public speaker who was not connected at the time.

She is here.

If we can hear her very quickly.

Anastasia, please begin.

Anastasia, if you could hear us, the board is ready to dismiss.

I need you to open your mic, turn on your camera so that they can hear you.

Anastasia.

Yeah, my camera's on.

Yeah, please go.

Yeah, my camera is on hear me.

We need to see me hear me here.

Yes, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Uh, I support accountability in domestic relations court.

However, I believe this committee should ask a more fundamental question.

Why are guardian at Lyum evaluators, therapists, and other court appointed professionals given so much power over families in the first place.

And I thank you so very much for staying with me, but let's look into it.

My daughter and I are living the consequences of that system.

When my daughter was about 11 or 12 years old, she wanted a relationship with both of her parents.

Instead, more and more court appointed professionals became involved in our lives.

Guardian at Lytham, Joseph Paul, P O E L L became involved.

Therapist Rosh Nidave became involved, became involved.

Attorney David Fromm became involved.

Three judges handled my case over eight years.

Not one of them ever held an evidentiary hearing or allowed me to present my evidence.

And with every new professional, my daughter moved farther away from her mother.

Eventually, a no contact order was issued against me, despite there being absolutely no findings of abuse, neglect, or danger to my daughter whatsoever.

Since then, my daughter and I had no relationship for seven and a half years.

That is what concerns me.

These professionals are brought into cases to identify risks, yet too often normal family conflict disagreements over parenting and ordinary challenges of raising children are transformed into allegations of abuse, neglect, or danger.

High fees discussed here earlier were charged for years.

At the same time, when a no contact order was issued, um, I remained licensed by the state of Illinois and continued working with children in hospitals.

Hospitals trusted me with children.

USA swimming trusted me with children, but somehow my own daughter was denied a relationship with her mother for seven and a half years.

Those years are gone forever.

No judge can ever give give them back, no guardian at lightem can give them back, no evaluator can give them back.

Parents have fundamental rights.

Children have fundamental rights to relationship with fit parents.

Those rights should not be taken away based on opinions, recommendations, assumptions, or unproven allegations.

In my view, the default starting point should be equal involvement of both parents unless there's clear conviction of a crime against the child.

Families should not spend years trapped in litigation while court-appointed professionals investigate, evaluate, bill fees discussed here earlier, and gain increasing influence over children's lives.

When my 12-year-old daughter asked for GAL for equal time with both parents, he advised the judge of a no-contact order with the mother instead.

When mistakes are made, families pay the price.

After seven and a half years since the state effectively savored her relationship with her mother, it seems that it's now forever.

And my question is where is the justice here?

Where is helping children?

And ma'am, your time destroy the mother-daughter relationship.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

And Chairman, this does require a roll call vote because there's a remote participant.

Seconded by Commissioner Alma Anaya.

Roll call.

Commissioner Aguilar.

Aye.

Commissioner Anaya.

Aye.

Commissioner Britton is absent.

Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Degnan.

Aye.

Commissioner Gaynor is excused.

Commissioner Laurie.

Aye.

Commissioner McCasco is absent.

Commissioner Miller.

Aye.

Thank you.

Commissioner Marita.

Morita I.

Commissioner Marita is aye.

Previous votes were aye.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Mr.

Kevin Morrison is aye.

Commissioner Sean Morrison is excused.

Commissioner Scott is absent.

Vice Chair Stamps.

Aye.

Thank you, ma'am.

Commissioner Trevor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Aye.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman.

12 ayes, five absent.

Motion carries.

With no other further business.

Commissioner Miller moves to adjourn.

Seconded by Commissioner Alma Anaya.

All in favor of adjournment say aye.

We are adjourned.

Thank you all.

Let me ask my first question.