Court Cash Fight Threatens Addition for Support Cases

SANTA ANA — The continuing legal battle between Orange County supervisors and judges has jeopardized plans to add a second court to handle the growing number of child support cases.

Court administrators said Thursday that they will not proceed with the planned addition because of staffing “constraints” imposed by the Board of Supervisors this week when it approved the new court.

The district attorney’s office recently hired 87 new attorneys, investigators and other staffers to beef up its family-support collection efforts, and a second court is needed to hear the additional cases.

Alan Slater, executive officer of Orange County Superior Court, sent a letter to Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi on Thursday informing him that the expansion won’t occur because the board demanded that he fill the 15 staff positions for the court from existing staff allocations, rather than adding new positions.

Supervisors said the courts and marshal’s office already have 118 vacant positions and that Slater could reallocate some of those positions rather than add 15 new ones. Salaries for the 15 positions would be paid by state and federal grants totaling about $300,000.

Board members made the demand because the county and the courts are engaged in litigation over what the court’s actual needs are, and what the county’s financial contribution should be.

The judges filed an action in April demanding $23 million in additional funding to pay for a variety of projects, new hires and operating costs. The county contends the courts need far less money.

“Given the litigation we are in, I’m reluctant to add new positions before there is a clear determination of what the court’s needs are,” Board of Supervisors Chairman William G. Steiner said. “I’m astonished that the courts cannot find 15 positions out of the 118 vacant positions they have. They will have to take full responsibility for turning their backs on the issue of child support.”

*

Steiner said he strongly backs establishing a second family-support court and hoped that court administrators would hammer out a solution with County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier.

“We asked them at the [board] meeting to work with the CEO, and I hope they will,” Steiner said. “I don’t think this is a closed door. . . . There is clearly a need for another courtroom, and we need to make it happen.”

The state and federal grants would fully cover the initial costs of establishing the new courtroom. Officials hope additional state and federal funds would cover future operating costs.

Slater said most of the vacant positions are the result of “normal turnover” and that shifting those jobs to the new courtroom would simply deplete resources elsewhere. He also doubted that the courts are allowed to accept the grant without adding the new positions.

“You can’t just take a position in one area and move it over to another area,” Slater said. “It wouldn’t be sound management or the proper thing to do.”

Theodore E. Millard, presiding judge of the Superior Court, said the current family-support commissioners handle a heavy caseload and that studies found the county needs the equivalent of 1.8 additional commissioners.

“I don’t have any explanation of why [the supervisors] would do this,” Millard said. “I can’t believe they would do something like this.”

The board voted 5 to 0 on the issue. At the time, Supervisor Todd Spitzer said he hoped the staffing orders would not hurt the county’s efforts to improve its child support collection system.