My name is Dayaar Singla and I am an international exchange student from India’s National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad. My interest in this course was piqued by Prof. Ball’s description of how this is a “class as a think-tank”. Further, it is extremely interesting for me to study the Foster Care System in California as the entire concept is extremely alien for someone from India. This helps me in providing an outsider’s perspective to the class discussions.
In my understanding, resolution of any policy issue follows a 4 step process which can be shown as:
While my colleagues will be working on identifying the various problems that exist with the Foster Care System in California and attempt to propose solutions to rectify some of them, I due to my lack of understanding of the US socio-cultural and political system have decided to look at a broader problem that policymakers seem to be facing. In a number of social programs, we seem to be coming across the replication crisis which has been previously documented in scientific research. While some solutions proposed at Stage II seem to give successful results when they are tested in a pilot project, policymakers seem to be failing in being able to replicate the results when these projects are scaled up.
Over the series of my blog posts, I will first be introducing the replication crisis, as has been observed in other fields; then I will analyze successful pilot projects which failed to replicate their success when they were scaled up and attempt to draw out the commonalities between them. Finally, I will try to provide best practices that might help policymakers in designing pilot projects which eliminate some of the commonly observed factors leading to their failure on being scaled up.
My name is Nandini Ruparel, and I am a second-year student at Santa Clara University Law School. This semester, I will be focusing my research on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), enacted by Congress in 1978. ICWA requires that, if a child becomes a dependent of the court and may be eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe, the tribe has primary jurisdiction over the proceedings. In a practical sense, it means that if the child is eligible for membership in a Native American tribe, it is likely that the child will end up with a family from that tribe. Each individual tribe has different eligibility requirements for membership.
ICWA was enacted in response to a disproportionate amount of Native American children being taken from their homes and placed in non-Native families. Congress found that local social services–and the social workers they employ–lacked cultural and historical understanding of tribal customs and familial child-raising practices.
In my exploration of the topic, I will be researching the following questions:
What happens to children who are put back in tribal families because of ICWA? Do they feel less/more connected to their heritage? What does the research say, and is there any research that compares the outcomes of these children as compared to foster care kids in general?
What are some policy ideas that have been suggested regarding ICWA? Currently, ICWA remains unchanged from its enactment in 1978, despite bills from congressmen and women over the years to amend the act—some as recently as 2003 (pdf, J-STOR).
Who does support ICWA, and why? Who does not, and why? For example, some research says that ICWA puts the best interests of tribes over the best interest of the child and is unconstitutional under the equal protection doctrine. Others say that the act is the only way to protect Indian tribes from discriminatory acts by social service agencies.
Ultimately, I want to use this research to answer this key question: if we were going to propose policy changes to ICWA, what would be the best changes to benefit both children and their Native American families?
My name is Monica Willey and I am a second year law student at Santa Clara University School of Law. I was born and raised in East San Jose, California. After graduating from the University of San Francisco in 2008, I worked in San Jose’s Alum Rock Union School District in various capacities, including teaching middle school. I’ve worked with many students that had educational and emotional needs that simply could not be met with the resources the school had available. It is this injustice that led me on a journey to law school. This semester I plan to bring you four segments on the way in which foster youth interact with the education system in California.
First, I will look at the ways in which trauma affects learning by looking at various studies and what schools might do as a response to some behaviors that are exhibited as a result of trauma. Second, I will explore foster youth in particular and how removal from the home and many other aspects of the foster care system cause trauma. Third, I will investigate ways in which California’s public school system is and is not equipped to deal with foster care youth and their unique needs. Lastly, I would like to suggest what could be done in order to have more successful foster care youth in terms of their educational achievements.
name is Willa Mankins and I am currently a second-year law student at Santa
Clara University. I was born in Virginia, but I have lived in California for
the last 10 years and fallen in love with the state. I am the first member of
my family to go to law school, and I picked this career path to be an advocate
and have my ideas and thoughts be heard on a larger scale.
law school, I received two degrees during my four years at Mills College: a
B.S. in Biopsychology and a B.A. in English Literature. My degree in
Biopsychology helped me to understand that what happens to us mentally always
affects us physically. In particular, I learned about various psychological
disorders and became interested, in particular, in the causes and treatments
for traumas and disorders diagnosed in children. Foster children are a prime
example of how early trauma can result in permanent mental health challenges.
For example, foster children experience PTSD, depression, and anxiety at 4 times the rate of the general
population. These diagnoses affect every aspect of their lives and,
unfortunately, can lead to contact with the juvenile
this semester, I am hoping to educate myself, and provide information for
others, on the mental trauma that foster children undergo from being in the
system. I am driven to understand and explore how the foster system we have
created, which is intended to benefit and protect these children, is instead
perpetuating generations of mentally scarred and substance-dependent youths. I want
to use this opportunity to try to identify the flaws in the services currently
provided in California that create a lack of access to mental health services
and result in a pattern of substance abuse in foster youth.
the foster care system was created with the best interests of the children in
mind, it (like all government programs) needs to be critiqued and updated to
ensure it actually services the population it is intended to protect. I am
excited to provide an analysis on the current system that may lead to future
improvements and create more dialogue about this issue in our community.
There is a
far-reaching stereotype that the foster care system often times hurts those
involved more than it helps. My goal is to target potential policies that can
make the system contact more positive for all of the individuals involved. First,
I will look at the issue of placement instability. This will include looking at
state legislation to determine what the current placement procedures are. More
specifically, I will focus on foster parents and their legal obligations when
deciding to terminate a placement. Additionally, I will analyze how the current
shortage of foster parents contributes to the problem.
Second, I will write about the intersection between immigration status and the foster care system. This will include looking at the effects of immigration status on the children, parents, and placement options. My interest in this was drawn from the importance of immigration status in criminal proceedings. Defense attorneys are obligated to take this into account in order to provide effective assistance of counsel and prosecutors have to consider this factor when offering pleas. Therefore, I want to know whether special consideration to a person’s immigration status is built into the foster care system like it is in the criminal justice system. Are there any safeguards in place that keep a party’s immigration status confidential throughout the proceedings? Do foster youth or parents who are undocumented receive any special services? Does the system help foster youth obtain DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) before they age out? Are there any social services limitations to undocumented youth given their ineligibility for many government services? Are undocumented youth provided with tools to cope with the extra layer of fear? Overall, my goal is to determine how the system uses procedure to improve outcomes.
My name is Keuren
Parra and I am a second-year student at Santa Clara University School of Law.
My goal after law school is to work at a Public Defender’s office. I currently
intern at the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s office and have previously
interned at the Stanislaus County Public Defender’s office, the Katharine &
George Alexander Community Law Center, California Rural Legal Assistance, the
Department of Justice, and a private immigration law firm. My work has revolved
around serving underprivileged communities, but my interest in the above topics
came from a more personal connection. As a teen, one of my best friends was a
foster child facing placement instability. Additionally, I come from a family
of undocumented individuals and understand the trauma and complications that
come along with the lack of lawful immigration status. These experiences allow
me to view the foster care system from a unique perspective, and I hope that my
work on this topic can aid in the search for effective solutions to these
Welcome to this year’s edition of the Criminal Law and Policy Blog, a product of the Criminal Law and Policy Seminar at Santa Clara University School of Law. We will be focusing on the legal and policy implications of the foster care system in California. As with my past courses on marijuana legalization and bail reform, both of which resulted in statewide policy changes, the goal for this class is for students to produce work that informs policymakers and interest groups. I decided that I wanted the class to focus on this subject because I think it’s important–and tragic–that we, as a society, can know the statistics about the life outcomes of foster children and not do better than we are doing. Despite the subject’s importance, I actually don’t know much about the foster care system other than two things: first, that we sometimes unnecessarily terminate parental rights, we sometimes unnecessarily don’t, and it’s hard to tell the difference, and second, that children who are placed in foster care often end up in the criminal legal system.
In my past posts I have identified several issues with the lack of safeguards in immigration bond proceedings. During the course of my research I called several bond companies and inquired about their services. In this post I want to explore what happens when immigration judges set bond amounts that are too high for families to afford and they are forced to contract with bond companies.
Immigration bond, if paid directly to ICE, needs to be paid in full. When bond is set at an amount that a detainee and their family cannot afford, they often contract with bond companies to get a “surety bond” – a promise that they will either pay the full amount or comply with other terms as set in the contract. Most companies require collateral, usually in the form of a house with enough equity, a credit card with enough credit to cover the full amount of the bond, cash, or a combination of these three assets. One of the bail bond agents I spoke with claimed that there is a 90% chance that if the bond is paid directly to ICE the bond will be “lost”; not refunded once the proceeding is over.
Most bond companies also charge a one-time premium, based on the total bond amount, usually between 15% to 20%. This premium is higher than the usual 10% in criminal cases; the reason given by bond companies is that the risk that immigrants will not show up to court is higher than in criminal cases. There may also be other processing fees. Some other bond companies require a non-refundable premium each year, usually 10%, until the case is closed. Since immigration proceedings can take years, immigrants and their families can end up paying thousands of dollars in fees alone.
The Religious Based Organization “Helping” Families Reunite:
But there is a new type of business that has emerged to service those who do not have property or other assets to use as collateral. The name is “Libre” by Nexus, a Virginia based company whose “GPS program” provides what they describe as a “critical service [that] guarantees the immigration bond, and uses the GPS to secure the bond” without requiring any collateral.
According to an article published in 2015, Nexus Services, which is the parent company of “Libre by Nexus”, was founded in 2008 as a non-profit that provided “GPS tracking ankle bracelets for criminal suspects” with the idea of reducing jail overcrowding. In 2013, it became a for-profit business, expanding to other areas, such as drug and alcohol treatment and monitoring programs, a property division that rents or sells homes and business spaces to their immigrant customers, and, more recently, Nexus Caridades, a non-profit providing free legal services to immigrants in detention and removal proceedings.
The GPS tracking program is the core of Nexus. But the fees and practices of this company have raised red flags and many are concerned about what they consider to be fraudulent practices by the company. Libre by Nexus’s website describes it not as a bail bond company, but as one that contracts with bail bond companies that actually post the immigration bond. Nexus claims to either pay the full amount of the bond to the bail bond company or place other property as collateral.
Nexus requires a “co-signer”, someone responsible for ensuring that the individual detained complies with ICE’s orders and shows up to court. This person does not have to be a Legal Permanent Resident or Citizen, which many immigrants may see as an advantage. It also requires two pictures, one of the individual detained and another of the place the individual will live once released, and a list of three references. Once the application has been approved, the families have to pay a one-time nonrefundable 20% premium, based upon the total amount of the bond, plus an $880 processing and installation fee for bonds over $5,000, also non-refundable. Nexus’s website claims that they do not keep any of that money, but one of Nexus’s agents told me that the 20% premium gets “divided”. She did not know how it gets divided, only that the fee was the equivalent of “interest” that the company keeps; it does not get paid to the actual bail bond company.
After the initial fee is paid then a GPS bracelet is placed on the immigrant as soon as he is released. After the first month, the families must pay a monthly non-refundable $420 rental fee for the GPS; the first month is “free”. The rental fee does not get applied to the bond amount. Once the individual is released there are two options, pay 80% of the bond at once and have the GPS removed, then pay the 20% remaining in monthly installments; or wear the GPS, pay the monthly rental fee, and anything additional gets applied to the bond balance. Once 80% of the bond has been paid, which could take several months or years, then the GPS will be removed and the immigrant will be responsible for monthly payments for the remaining 20%.
Another option is that once the immigrant gets released, but only after their release, they place a house or other property as collateral. The approval process takes one to three months, during which the GPS rental fee will continue to be paid. Regular bail bond companies accept collateral before paying the bond, but not Nexus.
So what is wrong with Libre by Nexus?
In 2013, the office of the Commonwealth Attorney for the State of Virginia, (CWA) the Fairfax City Police Department, and ICE Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) – an agency in charge of criminal and civil investigations involving national security threats, identity fraud, benefit fraud, or commercial fraud – all began investigating the practices of Libre by Nexus. The investigation began after several attorneys complained about what they considered were Nexus’s fraudulent practices. But to this date no charges have been filed against Nexus or any of its agents. A few weeks ago, I was provided the opportunity to review hundreds of pages of documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act which gave me a better insight into how Nexus operates, and, while I cannot share those documents at this moment, here is what I found.
Many clients of Nexus have come forward and complained about the company’s practices. Here is a list of some of these practices and the red flags they raise:
Nexus’s contracts states that they agree “to track the defendant pursuant to the bond set in the client’s local case, which currently is docketed in the EOIR IMMIGRATION Court” (See page 5). However, if a judge does not condition the bond on any kind of GPS monitoring, how can Nexus make the claim they are monitoring pursuant to conditions set by the Court?
While Nexus does not make this express claim in writing, its agents have visited prospective clients in detention and have told them that they need, or that ICE or the immigration judge requires them, to contract with Nexus in order to “get out”. But ICE claims, and Nexus acknowledges in writing, that they are not affiliated with ICE or any other government agency and that they do not make release decisions (Page 5). However, there is a certain element of coercion when ordained ministers, employed by Nexus, visit desperate detainees and tell them that their only hope at getting out is Nexus.
Attorneys have reported that judges have required their clients to comply with Nexus’s Programs. In at least one case, an immigration judge in Arlington conditioned, in writing, that a detainee be released on a $20,000 bond and comply with the Nexus program. As I wrote in my last post, judges have great discretion, but they also have the duty to be “Impartial” –“An Immigration Judge shall act impartially and shall not give preferential treatment to any organization or individual when adjudicating the merits of a particular case.” (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8)). To be clear, immigration judges can set a condition that a detainee wear a GPS device in order to be released, or set other “terms of release” (8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1)), but they have to do it through a government sponsor program. For instance, GEO’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) is an alternative to detention program that provides GPS monitoring for the Department of Homeland Security. Nexus, as far as I can tell, does not have a contract with ICE the same way the GEO group does. While judges may not be violating the law, at the very least one can argue that they are abusing their discretion by failing to remain impartial and ordering compliance with a non-governmental program. See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8).
When clients have complained about the GPS or the fees, Nexus agents have told them that if they remove the GPS then the judge will revoke the bond. Now, this is not correct, at least not in theory. If the judge does not release an individual on the condition that he wears a Nexus GPS (which the judge should not do; see (5 F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8)) then neither the judge nor ICE should be able to revoke the bond. However, Nexus can ask the bail bond company to contact ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and ask them to take the immigrant back for not complying with the bond requirements. Most officers comply with these requests. A bail bond company can always revoke bail and ICE can take the immigrant back into custody. But in this case, the immigrant contracts directly with Nexus and not with a bail bond company. However, Nexus has found a way to use ICE to essentially “enforce” their contract by having the bond company make the request with ERO. It is not clear what the bail bond companies get out of this or what the actual financial arrangement is between them and Nexus. Even if this is not illegal, it raises a lot of concerns and leaves a lot of room for abuse.
Traditional Bail Bond Companies, such as Freedom Bail Bonds, have promoted Nexus as a program that can help get immigrants out of detention. In some cases, bail bond companies that work with Nexus have charged clients an initial 15% premium to post the bond and have then referred clients to Nexus to have a bracelet placed on them. This means that if an immigrant has an $18,000 bond, he will pay $2,250 to the bail bond company and $3,130 to Nexus. But this makes no sense. If an individual can contract with a bail bond company directly then it is likely because that person can provide collateral, so there is no need to secure the bond through a Nexus GPS. It is not clear whether bail bond companies receive any payment or commission from Nexus, but if they do then they have found a way to make even more money off unsuspecting and desperate clients.
In certain cases, where clients were granted bond and were ordered to enroll in an Alternative to Detention (ATD) Program as a condition for release – meaning they had to wear a GPS device provided by BI Monitoring Operation (owned by the GEO Group) — they were told by Nexus that they also had to wear a second GPS provided by them. The issue is that they were never provided a GPS from Nexus, but they still had to pay $320 a month, after a $100 “discount” for already having an ISAP GPS. If Nexus’ claim that “ICE does not share supervision information with Nexus and Nexus does not share supervision information with ICE” is true, how could Nexus charge for monitoring that was only done by ICE if Nexus and ICE were in fact not sharing information? But more importantly, how is it that none of the agencies that “investigated” Nexus in 2013 brought charges against the company? Several incident reports were filed in Fairfax County alone, yet the Virginia Commonwealth Attorney refused to file charges unless the GPS devices were “not functioning”. But, in some cases this element couldn’t be established simply because these clients were never provided with a GPS device.
Nexus charges an initial nonrefundable assessment fee, usually $600 (Page 5). The fee is waived upon release and credited to the first month lease and activation fee, so when Nexus says that the first month is ‘free’ it really isn’t. If the detainee is not released, then Nexus makes their “report(s)” available for presentation at Immigration Bond hearings. In other words, they act as a private pre-trial services type of agency, draft a report and hand it over to the immigrant’s family, who many times are convinced this report will help secure the release of their loved one. But Nexus does not play a role in release determinations, as far as I can tell, and I could not find a copy of the type of report Nexus provides the families or the court.
Nexus has encouraged clients to fire their attorneys and hire Nexus recommended attorneys. The company recently expanded Nexus Caridades, a non-profit providing free legal services for those who qualify. While not illegal, this raises even more red flags. One can see how this may create conflicts of interest. Clients of Nexus have complained about the payments, the bracelet, and the service to their attorneys, and in some cases attorneys have removed the GPS devices and marched into Nexus’s office to return the device and inform them that the client will no longer make the payments. I could not find any evidence that Nexus has retaliated against those who are represented by private counsel. But what happens if the client is represented by one of Nexus’s attorneys? Would they do the same? Would they contact the attorney general when their clients are paying for a device they never received? I think the answer is obvious.
If an immigrant gets released and decides to post a house as collateral, they must provide Nexus with a copy of the deed, the mortgage and an appraisal. During the period the proceedings last, the house “belongs” to Nexus. If anything happens and the immigrant who was bonded out by Nexus fails to show up to court, Nexus will not enforce a lien on the house for the bond amount alone, as most bond companies would. Instead Nexus takes the whole house, as explained by one of its agents. When I tried to clarify this point, and reminded her that I was inquiring about a $15,000 bond, I was told this was correct, they take the whole house as compensation for the “risk” they were undertaking and because they have to pay the full amount of the bond to the bond company.
So what can we do?
Under Virginia law, the Commonwealth Attorney General did not think that any of what I just described constituted fraud. However under California law, “actual fraud” consists of “the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true [and] a promise made without any intention of performing it” and “undue influence” is described as “suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true,” (§§ 1172, 1175). So take for instance, telling a desperate detainee or his family that unless they contract with Nexus their loved one will stay in detention—this is not true and Nexus knows that; or telling them that not complying with Nexus will cause the judge to revoke the bond.
But some will say, “the client should’ve just read the contract”. The contract is in English, but a lot of people who contract with Nexus are recently arrived immigrants who do not speak English. Under California Law, as amended in 2014, Cal. Civ. Code §1812.623(a) seems to apply to the kind of GPS tracking devices used by Nexus, or at least one can argue it should. If that is so, then Nexus, when doing business in California, must provide a written agreement “in the same language as principally used in any oral sales presentation or negotiations leading to the execution of the agreement.” The languages include, because of the demographics in California, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean. The copies of Nexus contracts I was able to obtain include one single page in Spanish, out of thirty-three pages (Page 6). The quality of translation is terrible to say the least; it looks as if someone used Google translate to try to translate the English version. I am a fluent Spanish speaker and I could not decipher half of what was written in the “Spanish” version. Under California law, a consumer is entitled to remedies, including actual damages; consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs; and exemplary damages, in the amount the court deems proper. Cal. Civ. Code §1812.636(a)
If Nexus isn’t committing fraud, they are definitely walking a very thin line. I would be surprised if they could sustain these practices, although the reality is that Nexus found the perfect community to defraud. A lot of immigrants are afraid to come forward, and even when they do, no one seems to do anything, at least not in Virginia.