Law and Social Work - English class notes -2007

Back to all Material

Social work and law

Class – 26/2/2007

-SW and law meet in:

שרות מבחן
Laws
Schools - קבס
Health
Family – as seen in family courts
Handicapped/un-independent old foggies

-we’ll speak about ethics t/w end of course

Syllabus:

Laws – we’ll learn in class + she’ll refer us

Articles – read all

Rulings: all – found in law library on computers

-two 1^st classes will deal with legal system here is Israel

public law – b/w citizen and gov’t/criminal
private – b/w citizens/employer/contracts/damages àgov’t doesn’t get involved here

law hierarchy:

constitution define how municipality structure/rights/rules of interpretations of law –in israel
w/o it, there were basic laws in Israel: freedom of job/freedom of person

laws can’t contradict basic laws – high court cancelled some laws in the past

alise miller – read 4541/94 – read only factual parts

-she did a pilot license civilly in SA – when she moved to Israel, she wasn’t accepted as pilot in the IDF b/c she’s a girl

àher claim was that this is against the equality [כבוד האדם] – if there is a basis for “discrimination” then it is not discrimination

-army said:

women are off of reserves after pregnancy
technical problems in structure
more vulnerable as a potential capture

there is a basis for the discrimination and thus it is not discrimination
there is a clash of values, you have to choose one

the high court accepted Miller’s claim: the army set the tone for the rest of society

the army’s claims are not relevant to negating overall draft of women to pilot training

miller: also read decision: pages 100-115

basic law
primary law

-every law could start in one of 3 ways:

gov’t decides together about a law
a specific Knesset committee
private MK could initiate a law

stages:

law is proposed
Privately initiated law: the initiating MK reads “Kria Tromit” – first reading b/f law runs in the system
first reading: basic idea of law. The relevant minister reads it.
the committee relating to the law discusses the specific clauses
second reading: the edited law is read to Knesset and voted on specific laws
third reading =vote on whole law

-law said that total majority can have a law hat is against a basic law

secondary law

every minister in charge of a law has a right to make appendixes in it to fasten something

this is a faster way to deal with something
those can’t contradict law unless specifically stated by law or emergency [usually war]

usually, those amendments/specifications are made on professional and not on political
another kind of secondary laws: municipality עזרlaws – they have right to do things like set their own taxes àwhatever law they decide –goes to interior ministry

-all laws in Israel are published in something called רשומות – if not – it is not a valid law

Courts: interpretation of law

-each law is signed by related minister , Knesset speaker and PM. Basic law says that all law is signed by president except laws about presidency

Class 12/3/2007

Civil stuff:

Legal system has 3 components:

peace court – some 30 in Israel – they deal w/ 2 main issues: civil [contractual] and [under 2.5 million shekel] criminal àanything up to 7 years. If above that, it automatically goes to regional court. The issue of land is also dealt w/ here: usage of land. Usually 1 judge, special cases – 3 judges
regional court – 5 in Israel. Land issues: ownership of land. If someone is not happy about peace court, he can appeal it here [w/I 45 days –in right –i.e. w/o anyone giving you permission] 2^nd appeal – w/ permission [of the supreme court] – absurd: if you first get a punishment sentence 2^nd time, you can’t appeal that!. More than 2.5 million shekel or more than 7 years sentence. Easier cases 1 judge, harder cases 3 judges. Appeals -always 3 judges, but an appeal over an arrest detention [which the peace court decided]– 1 judge. More than 10 years, always 3 judges, but not always happen w/ 3

Beer Sheva
Jerusalem
Nazareth
Haifa
Tel Aviv- deal w/ more lower courts’ cases than say, one in Jerusalem

supreme court

to appeal regional court
“Bagatz”

always 3 judges
Sits in Jerusalem
Civil or criminal from regional court’s appeal

-another permission appeal in Supreme court:

if something needs to be changed in order for case to proceed in regional court, yu can appeal it in the middle of the trial –i.e. regional court decides to revoke immunity of someone who has it
some special decisions –appeals only in high court – i.e. accounting/law license

-in some special cases, if someone wants to appeal supreme court, you can have another hearing, w/ more than 3 – usually 7

àonly in specified cases, i.e. if court changes a consistent stance of the legal system/special cases/some new case where we never had to deal with/sentence which is hard to fulfill/in criminal – if someone has evidence contrary to what was sentences àretrial [sends it back to regional court]

To get retrial: need to produce new evidence or prove that evidence shown was false

Clause 15, 30– khok yesod shfita

Special courts:

Family [kids/divorce/inheritance/etc…] – parallel to peace court
Rabbinical
Juvenile courts– parallel to peace court -12-18 year olds. b/f 12 – פקיד סעד

Murders, in principle, are life-sentences. But in juvenile, it is not necessary
In cases where parents fail to take care of kids, the juvenile court deal w/ it – what to do w/ kids

small claims court - peace court level –until claims up to 17,800/no lawyers/usually tries to get compromise. Appeals are by permission [of the regional]
work court –work-related –also a rep. of social thingies
transport court

-next case, speak w/ bagatz!!! – ASK

avitalm@justice.gov.il

class – 19/3/2007

supreme court:

appeals
bagatz: against the institution – fix injustices of state against people

-but to get bagatz, you need to:

go to all the options beforehand
need to be judgable
reasonable time -שיהוי

Family courts

peace court level
mostly divorce and its consequences

-the actual divorce/marriage is the religious court

sharai court for muslims
Druze
xtians
Rabbinate
Special courts for cases w/ doubts

rabbinate law, 1^st clause, says:

1) jews, residents or citizens, are under rabbinate court for marriage

2) for divorce: mezonot, $, kid’s education and visitations, housing, can also be discussed in family court

Wife mezonot: until divorce, men have to support wife. In modern world, women also support themselves, so some claim that he doesn’t have to pay her support – and courts accepted this and said, that there needs to be a balance of resources

4^th clause:

women can chose whether to go for family or rabbinate court to ask for mezonot/support
other stuff, is judged in family court. But; people who get divorced in rabbinate, can ask the aforementioned [“family”] matters in the rabbinate
the mezonot for kids is the only clause that both sides agree b/f it is judged in rabbinate

This creates a battle of authority:

family court gives more $ to women
rabbinate doesn’t consider the pension plans/השתלמויות
so men prefer rabbinate, and the family court is out of authority
so person who opened first is the one who has upper hand
family court doesn’t regard why the people want divorce. Rabbinate does [i.e. if women can lose mezonot]
according to Israeli law, in divorce, $ is split half-half – 1974 law, legalized something that was standard vs. rabbinate, which use according to who’s name the item is named after
one positive thing for women in rabbinate: women gets the house where she lives in right now, even if written on husband’s name [as part of mezonot]

note: mezonot: not after divorce. But yes for kids

chok yachasei mamon - 1974

-law saying the divorcees have to split half-halfàregardless of the court body

Example- babli case:

-if husband is worker and wife is housewife. The rabbinate splits half-half. The wife asks high court [bagatz] to ask rabbinate to follow law, and bagatz does this

-yet, in general, rabbinate keeps ignoring this, saying that this is halakha

Other disputes – i.e.

prefers to give kids to the religious and not to the non-religious parent

problem: this ads an elements of unfairness into the family dynamic: whoever files first has more say

note: there needs to be specific discussion about kids, and take their best interest into account. If not, one partner can always claim that it wasn’t a valid discussion

-once a decision is made, you can’t change it. One court will not discuss something in other court’s authority. You can’t appeal it

àunless something new comes up

àthe kids, w/ time, can ask to have change

Class 26/3/2007

law against violence in family

law can distance a violent person from the house

Helping units in the family courts

חוק למניעת אלימות במשפחה -1991

-recognizes the difficulty of living w/ someone who is violent

i.e. dad who harms kid or wife and families could do nothing, and complaining in police didn’t do anything

àalso, legal bearocracy took long time, and complaining made things worse

Until then

-women gets housing/distancing order

-in family court, both parties have to be there, and it is hard to get

Law was ment to make things shorter

Clause #1 says: also parent/sibling/kids/grandparents who hit

physical harm
sexual
confining a person in the whose
even someone at risk to do harm
verbal violence also counts here

-in such cases, woman can go to court to get a distancing order –can’t come into contact w/ women, or deal w/ the house

àuntil then, the thing was to distance the women to a shelters [and still happens in cases where distancing ordr in not enough] – prob.: it detaches her and the kids from their surroundings/friends/school

-police now have units dealing w/ violence in families ài.e. settings which make it easier and more comfortable for women to complain

Minors who hit:

-often, the parents are helpless

-turn to pkidei saad/settings outside the home

àso often they turn to police hoping that kid will be taken from home [they don’t want him to have criminal record, but they can’t deal w/ it]

-the family violence law doesn’t give enough details as to what to do with abusive minors

Conflict problem

minor needs a roof
violence t/w parents usually reflect violence t/w him or at least something rotten there

-you can turn to either court or religious court àeven w/ only 1 side present! –is valid for 7 days until when there is a discussion w/ 2 sides present àcould can increase up to 3 months for up to 6 months or 1 year

Abuse of abuse law

-some women complain w/o it really happening –i.e. in order to gain more in divorce

5498/96

-i.e. in divorce –at times when kids spend some time w/ each parent

-in this case, the women complained to Rabbinate court to give distancing order to dad – b/w she said he sexually abused their 6 year old kid

-court asked SW pkidat saad to see what’s flying and get a psychological profile on him

-the court said: the father can see kid in seeing centers, but otherwise, the distancing order is still in place

-dad wasn’t allow to cross-examine psychologist, so he goes to Bagatz saying he couldn’t cross-examine psychologist and deal w/ the false complains

-Supreme court decides that bagatz is not relevant here, especially in Religious courts. Bagatz will only get involved when there is a blunt crossing of laws in Rabbinate court

àafter all, the man can easily appeal to higher rabbinical court

Judge Beinish: wrote about how no education excuse for even slapping

Violence law: 1, 2a,b, 3, 4, 5a

-usually husband is not allowed to carry weapons, unless they have good reason to specify otherwise

Assistance units of the court

-every family court has Social workers/psychiatrists/psychologists

-minimum ma in SW and at least 5 years of family treatment experience

-each judge has a SW working w/ him. He advices the court in those sensitive issues that court deals w/. this helps court to also take social and psychological factors

Units’ tasks

advises court on professional issues relating to family conflict
coordination b/w court and welfare system in community
advising families which were referred to the unit: disgnosis/treatment/advise/bridging àeither court says or the couple agree and then off they go to the unit
advising the court regarding who keeps the kids. They don’t write the reports but advise on the rports received by the פקידי סעד
they give workshops for people who deal w/ family court

-every region has this unit

a senior SW/psych/psychiatrist stand at head of such a unit
# of SW is according to # of judges
Only takes on work from either court or from agreement of both sides.
Content said here is covered/privacy is kept à except the results and conclusions for the court
Don’t write court memos – just advise on them
They don’t visit local social services – they just help court reach the verdict w/ the best for the family
They make themselves be the case manager – but they give a free hand for conflict to be solved
i.e. also walks into judge to help speak to the child
all therapy info that comes to court goes through the assistance unit, who explains it to court

Questions which came up:

what is relation b/w court-helping units and diff. social services in community, i.e. family-therapy unit is local town who also do bridging

so this unit is set to be the bridging b/w the recommendations and the local services

accessibility to the court: will this unit lengthen or shorten the processes

answer; they give a usually quick answer – w/I an hour even!

We have a rat-race to the different courts [family/rabbinate]

so turning to assistance unit is like going to family court, so if husband doesn’t like answer, he can’t go to rabbinate

Prishtik/Adad = Rabbinical courts’ considerations in kids’ custody –פרישטיק/אדד

-this study wants to see the trend in child custody giving by rabbinical courts in Israel

4 possible approaches:

legal/law: taking into account legal factors only [i.e. kid’s will]
psycho-social: - i.e. parental ability
Halakhic: i.e. which will give id a better [religious] education
Extra- legal/Halakhic/Halakhic: i.e. irrelevant factors

Findings:

most dominant is the psycho-social
then Halakhic and legal factors also influences ruling
extra stuff not shown to influence ruling

-sometimes, there is a diff. b/w:

guardian [חזקה] –more physical, and perhaps also practical decisions, similar to custody. Rabbinical court accepts the latter interpretation
custody [משמורת] – wide ranging

-rabbinical court doesn’t distinguish b/w them

-court is supposed to be “for the benefit of child” but this is an ambiguous statement and could be interpreted in many ways

àtheoretical studies were done n the matter, but not practice studies [what really happens]

4 models to discuss Israel rabbinate’s approach

Legal

Early childhood principle/עקרון גיל הרך

w/ French revolution, move from absolute monarch w/ arbitrary rulings to objectified laws and
in terms of family, the trend was the roman principle of “patria potestas” – i.e. father rules the family
in 18^th century – move to the early childhood principle – give more weight to motherhood than fatherhood
with move from agriculture to industrial society, it b/c traditional that dad went to work and mom stayed w/ kids, thus courts saw more importance to motherhood
lately, there have been calls to equate fatherhood’s importance
nevertheless, the early childhood principle still overrides [giving kids to mom]

child’s rights and child’s will/עקרון זכויות הילד ורצון הילד

Lately, legal experts push for more recognition of child’s rights –i.e. to take into account his will [claiming he is too young is argued that is against his rights]
Their claim is that after age 6 and definitely after 10, kid can already know what is best for him. For anything younger, you can give him tests
Israeli law does regard child’s wishes, at least in regard to conversion to other religion

psychosocial

Psychological parent principle

this principle is reactionary to early childhood principle
the claim here is that what is important is the psychological wellbeing of the child and thus, each case must be weight on its own, by professionals
benefit of child is given a broad meaning
key is who takes most care of kid in the long-run – who is the psychological parent – this is called the continuity principle [beyond psychological continuity, some add measures like continuity in housing/work/staying in same school]

criticism:

-it is subjective

-child needs both parents [i.e. for things like sexual identity/extended family/inter-generational relationships] – based on that, you have joint custody and split custody = parents take care of the child equally

-criticism: kid need consistent parent

Parental ability testing

reduction in weight of “psychological parent” led to testing of parenthood w/ a weight of advantage vs. disadvantage. The emphasis is on future parenting. In case of tie b/w parents, then go by “early childhood principle” or encourage couple to seek compromise. Some even suggest having a toss of coin
Theoretical variables in parental ability:

emotional needs of kid
psychological and emotional abuse of kids
parents’ personality
parents’ health
economic ability [this might be bad for the moms]
ability to give child his educational needs
time availability of parents

Halakhic view:

has the 4 principles in it

early childhood
child’s will
psychological parent
parental [economic] ability

in the past, those principles were flexibly applied, but the trend nowadays is to give almost full weight to religious education
this is a list of religious-educational factors used today in rabbinical courts:

Giving the opportunity for religious education [i.e. more religious parent/going to live in Israel/less chances of assimilation]
Trend: boys to dad and girls to mom – so they can learn Judaism through modeling – but this trend is flexible
More religious parent – is seen as more worthy
Sexual morality of the parent
Jewish parent is clear-cut preferred over non-Jewish parent
Guilty of the breakup – i.e. if divorce is b/c of infidelity, then the other parent gets the kids

Extra factors:

-studies show that irrelevant factors influence court case, i.e. ethnicity

This study:

dependent variable: factors in court decision
independent variable: court’s final sentence

results:

age of kid is irrelevant
in total average, the dad gets about a third [general average]

kid’s will does infl.

Psychosocial model variables

Parental factors:

psychological parenting
ecological continuity
educational stimulation
economic answering of child’s needs
prognosis
professional recommendations
parent’s will

Factors found not influencing court’s decision

verbal violence
physical violence
siblings splitting
cognitive deficits
personality
physical health
family model
parental availability and accessibility
after discounting “other” –relationship w/ non-custodian parent

Psychological parenting

psychological relationship of child to specific parent gets that parent custody of kid
when equal b/w parents, then court leans t/w general average

Continuity

courts seem to weight in current continuity, especially improved chances for dad [i.e. if kid is w/ dad until court discussion]
if ecological continuity [place of living] is changed, court will be more hesitant to give to that parent

Concern for kid’s education

-educational factors weighing into specific parent

education stimulation
connection w/ school
parent as an educational model

economic needs of child

parent who can meet child’s need’s better, tend to get kids
otherwise, mom has advantage beyond general average

professional opinion

clear cut prognosis for one parent = that parent gets custody. When other prognosis is said [i.e. outside family], then about 1/2 each
when there is a recommendation but it is not as set/clear cut, it tends to be followed, but less strictly, with the clear benefit of the mom

-beyond professional’s opinions, courts also factor in things foreign to mental health

general trends:

courts prefer mom to dad 2:1
Social professionals prefer mom to dad 5:1

-so both prefer mom to dad in custody of kids, but professional more so.

àrabbinical courts seem more feminist in the sense that they prefer more equality than professionals

Parent’s will

-only in 1/3 of custody cases, parents agree

-dad’s struggle for custody increases custody chances from 1/3 to 40%

àotherwise, custody goes to mom in overriding number of cases

Halakhic factors

sexually inappropriate fathers lose less than sexually inappropriate mothers [in relationship to general average]
other factors found statistically insignificant [i.e. kids’ religious education/upbringing] – unlike popular conception

Foreign factors:

found to be statistically insignificant

summary

-general trend – 5% to fathers in Israel/10% abroad. The 1/3 in this study is explained by the fight that this specific population gave

-court doesn’t look at standard variables, like age/gender of kid, but rather legal/Halakhic

-problem in low number of cases in the population sample

שרות מבחן in criminal system –kagen-zandberg

Courts’ usage of reports of מבחן

-courts increasingly use such reports of שרות מבחן:

Examples:

יונית לוי – was recommended that there is alternative to arrest, since she’s a mom [drug dealing case]
אופנובנק Ofnobank: had life: sentence reduced from 20 to 14
ליאת לוין: give her a chance in stead of jail: so she was after 2 years in jail, and it worked! She took care of her life [after armed robbery]

-those reports are written w/ the intend of rehabilitating the criminal

שרות מבחן as the rehabilitation specialist

-just like the legal system is looking for punishment, as means to protect the public, the שרות מבחן is intended to give a rehabilitation prognosis and rehabilitation service in addition to the punishment of the legal system. In short, they are an advising body. They advise to the courts, [in writing!] but also to the correctional system and to the attorney general

Laws:

Punishment law:

37a: a person has a right to request a written report by שרות מבחן before his sentence, for the following issues:

defendant’s past
family situation [also reporting full details on his parents/partner/kids/siblings
economic situation
health situation of defendant and his family
special circumstances which brought on the crime
recommendation of type of punishment and chances of defendant being rehabilitated

38a: court has to receive such a report before sentencing a jail term

38b: the above clause is if defendant hasn’t turned 21 yet

-besides the formal law, the representatives of שרות מבחן also meat w/ prosecutors and defender lawyers and have right to add their comments. Their reports are also given for issues of before the sentence, i.e. in Yonit Levi, where the question was whether to have her under arrest until sentence or not

-the recommendations don’t necessarily give a rehabilitative plan – sometimes they recommend punitive steps

The report

-there are 2 parts: 1) defendant’s info and 2) recommendations

àwithout the dada, recommendation is irrelevant

-the recommendation is a recommendation only – the court does not have to accept it

-court sees itself as expert both in punitive and rehabilitative procedures, while the שרות מבחן is seen as expert solely in rehabilitation àthus their recommendation is seen as solely a recommendation and not a sentence

Info of the report:

-court sees the info as integral part of report, and it uses it in sentence. i.e. using the report’s info as to socioeconomic status, to be used to decide punitive/rehabilitative status

-since the report is based on hearsay – i.e. the info is gathered from defendant, it could be claimed to be questionable – so there is a right to 1) view [עיון] the report and 2) question it [טיעון]

Historical laws

Punishment law – 1958 -19^th clause: שרות מבחן – has to give report b/f sentence

-beyond clause 37/38, clause 19d says:

* court is allowed to show report to the people at hand, and hear claims regarding it, but it does not have to

àthus the argumentation –טיעון, and viewings עיון of report are not an automatic right, but a permissive stature, pending on court’s decision

Criminal law of 1963 – tried to replace this clause [19d]:

-the law said it is a right to view/argue the שרות מבחן report, but the right is not absolute

Clause 169: court will pass on to people of case the report and other evidence unless there are special circumstances not to reveal some or all of report

-Some Knesset members wanted the right to be absolute right while others wanted the right to be even more conditional

Criminal law of 1982 [integrated]:

Clause 191:

The report given by virtue of clause 37/38 of punishment law of 1977 – will be given to lawyers of prosecution/defense, and court will listen to all claims as to the report. Should the court chose so, also give the report to the defendant or in special circumstances, not reveal its contents

Based on the historical development of the Israeli law, there seems to be 2 differing approaches as to the right to view/set claims regarding the שרות מבחן report: 1)negating rights 2) absolute rights to view/argue [and there are tons of middle-ground views]

-those 2 extreme views have been rejected by the Israeli law-maker – negation never came up and absolute right to view has been compromised. Thus middle-ground approaches were adopted: at first, more negating and then a more rights oriented approach

Reliability of the שרות מבחן report

-the reliability of those reports have been questioned, since they are based on what people say, w/o the change to cross-examine/etc…

-the members of Knesset object to those reports argue this, but their argument was not accepted

Damage in showing the defendant the report on him;

knowing the diagnosis or rehabilitation plan might compromise the rehabilitation process
info on others in the family might invade their privacy [i.e. a hospitalized sibling, who is in psychiatric care]
public might be harmed from info/defendant might take advantage of the info in the report: i.e. if report says that defendant is uncooperative, and he sees it, he might say to the court that he is willing to cooperate, despite not meaning it. He can also use report to pressure people into giving info, or people miht not want to give info if they know that defendant will see it
the test officer [קצין מבחן] might fear for harming defendant or others and so his work might be compromised if info is given to defendant

balance

-there is a fine line b/w the right to have access to report and not harming anyone, so the law took this into account and let the court decide on the individual case level

קצין מבחן vs. פקיד סעד

-both help court get info, and both give rehabilitative info. The law is even similar:

חוק סעד-helping law – 1955, 4^th clause:

פקיד סעד is supposed to give report to court and is allowed to be questioned unless specified otherwise by the court

-the difference is in the law’s interpretation, and it is accepted that פקיד סעד does have to explain where he got his sources/info – unlike the קצין מבחן

קצין מבחן vs. professional committee

-a expert witness is a witness with knowledge in a certain field. His testimony is not automatically accepted – the courts have the final say. He is expected to report how he came to his conclusions –much of such info is hearsay, and thus one can cross-examine such a witness

similarity

-Both קצין מבחן and professional witness have weight of a expert witness, and the court can decide whether to accept their recommendations.

difference

-The diff. is that expert testimony could be cross-examined and קצין מבחן can’t [when an expert is one accepted by both parties, then the law says: no cross-examining, and קצין מבחן is one of those. And there are no limitations on access to sources of the expert testimony

Status of testing service/שרות מבחן

-3 things unify this service [and thus it gets its special status in the Israeli legal system]:

-this status justifies the limitation of the rights to access/questioning of info:

1) the קציני מבחן are loyal to the justice system – “officers of the courts” – they try to give most accurate picture, and site their sources –so it is very rare for there to be a dispute in court over the קצין מבחן reliability

2) the info is from the defendant, and since the only point of the קציני מבחן is to rehabilitate the defendant, there is no real fear of damaging the defendant

3) their job is not an integral part of the court-battle, but they come in t/w the sentencing –their role is limited to advising the judge, after the case has been fought

-thus, the קציני מבחן got their place in the legal system –they are not witnesses, but rather an “officer of the court” whose job it is to help work out the right “punishment”

-some point out that the fact that they are not witnesses allows the קציני מבחן to be more thorough

Social workers in public defender programs - Senna

-often, clients are in need of both lawyers and social workers

-the cooperation is not always there – the realization the cooperation is needed is not always carried out in practice

SW is important in legal system b/c:

SW/lawyer cooperation overcomes fragmentations in the legal services
Gives SW services to a new field where clientele needs such services
Puts SW in the adversary [opponent] group treating those who need social control

So, this article speaks about 4 things:

describes the public defender program as setting for Social workers
discuss the role of the caseworker/types of clients/types og treatment approaches
analyze the inter-professional relationship b/w SW and lawyer
outline implications of SW participation in public defender programs, and its validity

More defense services

-right to counsel has become more commonplace in US courts. Often, courts assign legal counsel or at least state has a public defender program. Such programs are ment to give legal advise to those w/o enough $ for lawyers.

àbut such people also have other problems [i.e. personal/unemployment/child care needs/etc…

àlately, there is pressure to give social services to the defenders, in addition to the legal aid he’s getting, in the same setting as he’s getting the legal help

àif there is social services in pubic defense, then

Assumptions of advocating SW in public defense:

SW/lawyers working together maximize their dual service to offenders
Treatment is given when their motivation is highest [b/c of case]
SE help get sentence most fitting their treatment needs

-underlying those assumptions is the need to stop future criminal b/h:

b/f first offenders b/c involved chronically in criminal system
diverting people from legal system

examples of programs:

Offender Rehabilitation Division of Public Defender Service in DC – similar to שרות מבחן in Israel
Santa Clara, California
Massachusetts

Research methodology

-study found that all public defender programs interviewed had a positive view, though about half had SW and it is increasing

Role of the Social worker

evaluating/determining client needs
referring clients to appropriate agencies
providing casework service
preparing written reports
appearing in court on behalf of client

-usually before sentencing, but there were also cases dealt w/ by SW where client is waiting appeal

Service include:

family counseling
job development
child care planning
client evaluation [most important]

-SW may appear in court and usually has the job of fighting for the client – i.e. arguing why he can be in the community/rehabilitated/alternatives to imprisonment [same as defense attorney] àfor example, sending to drug rehab instead of imprisonment. Also, casework [therapy] may be done [short-term or long term] but sometimes it is hard to differentiate b/w the casework and the evaluation. Usually it continues until sentence, but sometimes it continues, and even if client is found not guilty

Interpersonal cooperation

-the working relations b/w the lawyers and SW in public defense is good, but there are points of tension

Examples of tension b/w SW and lawyers:

i.e. lawyer wants info to infl. sentence and SW wants extensive rehabilitation
agree on reducing incarceration but disagree on community protection
rehab steps might be preferred by SW and lawyer is scared it might have legal ramifications in future [i.e. impeding driving license/etc…]
SW might want long treatment while lawyer wants shortest sentence possible
Defense organization might want easiest sentence while SW migt think that professionally, the best sentence is punishment

Implicating

lawyers might cooperate w/ ST treatment
SW might have a hard time accepting that they are secondary in the organization [public defense organizations firstly defense, before they give social services]
Thus the SW must realize that he’s working for an attorney

Education and research

-SW needs to learn law system and procedure, and law people need o learn about human condition in order to give best service. For example, lawyers need to learn how to interview

-a joint academic program can help answer questions like which criminals can be treated to less return to legal system [I.e. 40-70% of criminals return to legal/criminal system]

-questions still to be worked out are exact role and expectation of SW [i.e. vs. parole officers], h.m. authority to use in casework, etc…

Conclusion:

-most agree that SW are good for the public defense system, but the main question is budget

3 main benefits of SW in public defense:

giving evaluation àbringing rehabilitation and social services into the picture
allows for treatment while going through the legal process [note: time of high motivation of the suspect] –the issue is not reducing sentence but reducing the problem
cooperation by SW and lawyers, where both need success in order to help the guy

-class was off for a while b/c of Passover and a stupid student strike

Class -14/5/2007

-last class, we spoke of יחידות סיוע

Today, we’re gonna speak about the child-protection law – חוק הנוער (טיפול והשגחה)

àthis law speaks of kids in need - נזקקות

-Israel has juvenile courts – בית המשפט לנוער

-it is at the peace court level (בית משפט השלום)

Juvenile courts deal w/:

juvenile delinquency
youths in need –when there is no one to care for them

definitions

criteria if needy kids – תיק נזקקות

clause 2

no one in charge of him – i.e. infant left in hospital – so SW in hospital deal w/ such cases
the caregiver of the youth is unable or neglecting the caring for the kid
the youth does a crime and doesn’t go to court [b/c he’s under 12 – which is the legal age in Israel where kid can be tried
the kid is wondering the streets/working illegally
kid is under “bad influence’ – or lives in crime scene [gambling/whore houses]
basket category/ עילת סל –the kids physical/emotional welfare is undermined
infant born w/ addicted mother “withdrawal-symptom child”

-in each of such cases, you have a פקיד סעד –of the local city [they get the status after passing the course of מכון לעבודה סוציאלית]

Note: there is a diff. in social worker who works under welfare/city/hospital in regards to whom to listen to: i.e. city head of head פק”ס

פק”ס who thinks a kid is in danger based on information coming to him can go to court in order to ask for treatment [can because they can also go work with the family]

àcourts only help when nothing else worked

àso court can give any sentence w/ aim of helping the kid

Courts can also:

give mentor/חונך to the youth
give charge to פק”ס – i.e. telling the youth that he has to follow everything פק”ס says
psychiatric evaluation
if kid has AIDS – you need to report to parents [not other diseases]

-beyond those, פק”ס also deals w/ emergency measures – i.e. take kid out of his home – such a decision is valid for a week – and then פק”ס has to prepare the proceedings and report to court – afterwards, courts decide what to do, and they don’t always follow the פק”ס recommendations

חוק הנוער/youth protection law – clause 11

-פק”ס can take measures for a week w/o parental agreement –i.e. kids shelters. After that, court has to decide how to proceed

Criticism: need more control àthus many such cases end up in בג”צ – supreme courts

-claim: you must find other solutions

-by the way, there are also shelter families –משפחות קלט

-usually, court follows up on kid – every half a year

àif the court sees that there is cooperation, then they might even close the case, but, usually a case is followed up for years

Double criticism:

on one hand, a kid is taken too fast
on the other hand, other problem kids are neglected treatment

-the needy child case [תיק נזקקות] begins when פקיד סעד goes to court. But this is very cumbersome, while, ironically, criminal cases take much less time for the system to handle

Recent legal precedent –civil case 3970/98 – someone sues state of Israel and Tel Aviv municipality:

-claims רשלנות –negligence in treating him as an abused child

at age 5, his dad goes to social services saying he divorced wife and she doesn’t wanna care for kids. In the mean while, mother is in shelter for abused women
dad remarries and child complains in school of abuse in new family – kid even threatens to harm himself/commit suicide. Social services recommend treatment but nothing is done
second wave of reports –this time of dad saying that he is unable to deal w/ kid/ psychiatric evaluation says that the kid needs help, and fast. A few weeks later, kid is hospitalized in Nes Ziona’s psychiatric hospital. They keep him there for fear of him harming himself. He is kept there until an appropriate group home is found

plaintiff’s claim: you could have helped before hospitalization! And there was no need for hospitalization in the first place [he claims that he was not suicidal] – in short, the government’s social services had the responsibility and they disregarded it

when you sue damages for negligence, you need to prove:

person owes the plaintiff something
they neglected that
the damage is related to the neglect [causality]

sentence: the hospitalization was justified b/;w the kid was suicidal at the time, but the city was supposed to be more careful in dealing w/ the case earlier – so court awards plaintiff 200,000 shekels from the City of Tel Aviv

why is this a precedent?

-Because it gives municipalities and their social services responsibility over treatment of youths at risk

21/5/2007

No class

28/5/2007

חוק אימוץ

Adoption law – 1981

-deals w/ adoptions in Israel

-the body in charge of adoption is שרות למען הילדof social services

àthey deal w/ biological parents/adopting parents/adopted kid/kid of teen pregnancy

-is the kid is old enough, he can see the file

Adoption law:

Clause 2 you can only adopt someone less than 18 years old

Clause 5: you can only adopt someone of same religion

When does a kid get adoption?

parents come to place and say that they don’t want kid
at first, they try to solve the problem b/f kid is taken out of the home [i.e. deal with $/psychosocial problems before]
mom can go by herself, if she doesn’t know who the dad is – court decides that the kid is adoptable. If dad is available, then he also has to agree
most cases, the mom is the one coming
if the kid’s help service think that adoption is best option, then the legal advisor to the gov’t gets report and agrees [unless there is something missing in the info]
court then sees if parents have claims against such a move. court can accept parents claim or have a closed or open adoption

Clause 13

-the reasons for the court to claim that the kid is adoptable, regardless of parent’s will

you don’t know who the parent is or can’t find his opinion
the parents weren’t married and dad does not recognize the kid as his kid
the parent dies or is unaccountable for himself - פסול דין
the parent abandoned the kid or refuses to have contact w/ kid for at least 1/2 year
the parent, w/o a reasonable cause, refuses for 1/2 a year to care for the child
the kid is held out of his home for at least 1/2 year above age 6 and parents refuse to accept him [i.e. kids are in shelter] – we will give kid a trial basis of new parents
the parent is unable to deal w/ the his own b/h and situation, and there is little chance that parents’ situation will get better
there is a refusal to get kid out of illegal places [i.e. kid lives in gamble/hore-house]

-adopted parents have legal status of regular parents

-biological parent can change his mind b/f the adoption process is over [i.e. up to after the kid is in adopted family for at least 6 months]

àparent can go to court but they must have a good reason: i.e. their signature was faked/their conditions changed/etc…

Clause 16:

The adoption gives the kid and adopting parents same rights and responsibilities of biological parents, and it stops those responsibility and rights of biological parents, unless the court claims otherwise

-after adopting statement of court is set, adopting parents can’t change their mind

-biological parents aren’t allowed to be in touch w/ kid, but they can put in letters and photos in adoption file

The case of the fought child

-adopted parents sue biological parents

-pregnant biological mom asks for adoption b/f birth. Says that she’s not Jewish but dad is and they are now not in touch. At age 10 days, the kid is adopted. Soon after, biological mom changes her mind saying that she was under duress of psychological situation. Now she’s ok and her partner joined her. The court looks into in and the professional reports were ambivalent

-there was a debate about where the kid should be while the court is deciding the case, so the adopted parents were chosen

Regional court decided to return kid to biological parents and at age 2, the case comes to Supreme court

3 factors:

kid’s best interest: biological and adopted parents are weighted to see which is better
biological parent’s benefit and rights
interest of adopting parents

Generally speaking:

-court goes by whatever is best for the specific child

àit doesn’t look at biological vs. adopted parents – just whether more harm is done to child if he stays w/ biological or psychological parents or detachment from them. They are based on professional opinion of the specific case and not guiding general principles

factors

time w/ each of biological and adopted parents – gives more weight
attachment theory = first years are extremely important

Supreme court says: w/ time, the damage increases in he stays at adopting parent, so you can’t return kid. Also, just b/c parents now together, then you don’t know how labile that relationship. Also: when biological dad found out that he had kid, he did not immediately do anything

-after this case, the biological couple had a girl – so now they claim that brother has to grow w/ sister. Afterwards, a third child is born, and here again, the media asks whether the child should return to biological parents

Main point: the point of this case is to show how complex the adoption issue is, and you will never know [as a judge] what would have happened had you decided otherwise. The cost is negating the basic human right of biological parents [and siblings] where the benefit is having a better family context. Sometimes, after adoption, you see a regression in kid’s situation. Some cases, the court decides b/f knowing the full ramifications.

b/c of the huge ramification of adoptions:

-various attempts to have less totalitarian adoptions [i.e. open adoptions]

àin Israel, it is generally a closed adoption. But sometimes, a court decides on a open adoption: from regular meetings to letters. Also here, the benefit of the child is paramount, and is done only in agreement of all parties

Demand:

-easier to adopted when he is older or when he has an impairment. From age 9 years, the court won’t give adoption sentence, unless the kid agrees too. If the adopted kid doesn’t know that the adopted parents are not his biological parents, and he’s doing ok, then he’s not told he’s adopted

Class 4/6/2007

Juvenile court

-it is a peace-court level. It has 2 functions:

1) deal w/ need kids –חוק הנוער -ילדים נזקקים(טפול והשגחה

2) juvenile delinquency חוק הנוער -שפיטה ענישה ודרכי טיפול

Clause 2: needy is when:

no one to care over kid [i.e. mom left him at the hospital]
kid is not being watched over [unfunctioning parents]
the kid did a crime and can’t be tried [i.e. b/f age 12]
kid works younger than the law allows
bad influence on him – i.e. living in crime-scene – i.e. in parents’ gambling house
physical/emotional harm to kid by parents
kid is born w/ withdrawal syndrome

-so law said that is social officer [פקיד סעד] can turn to court to ask for order asking for treatment. Sometimes the parents agrees and there is no problem there/ פקיד סעד and courts come in when parents or kids do not agree. So the פקיד סעד gives a therapeutic plan to the court. Until now, the פקיד סעד is the one who can open a “needy child” case. There are calls to also allow judges to open such cases.

àthe judge can give any order he sees fit as helping the kid – i.e. even judge can even order that kid goes to this and that school at those hours/mentor/פקיד סעד/court visitations

Trend: try to give community programs b/f moving kid out of their homes

-see the precedent of the kid who sued the municipality [2 classes ago]

-many kids are in group setting because they are considered “needy kids”

àValid for 3 years – afterwards, it has to be renewed

Youth Punishment and treatment law

-deals w/ kids 12-18 years – they are dealt with in juvenile court

-the approach is rehabilitative – tries to take is personal situation into account

àvs. punishment

-in USA – criticism of paternalism/easy hand approach

àso juvenile court there b/c more punitive and the juvenile crime rate went up

Scotland: court only decides if the kid is guilty or not – the sentence is decided o in a community forum setting [community representatives/Social professionals]

Rehabilitative approach: is taken b/c

1) adolescent period is marked by changes -and

2) the crime is a symptom – so we’ll deal w/ the problem and not w/ the symptom – but if the court sees that there is no rehabilitation – then he is given punitive measures, since he is un-rehabilitatable

Testing service for kids שרות מבחן לנוער – teats those delinquent kids [there is parallel service for adults] àthe service is under social services

àthey are social workers, and they take care of the social aspects of the case [i.e. gets info from school/work and meets him] – and then decide whether court should charge the kid. Age 12-13 – test officer has to approve the charges. Above 13, the police has to wait 8 weeks in order to get the recommendation of test officer. –so until 13, there needs to be approval of testing officer. After that, the police has to wait w/ the charges to give a chance to get recommendation

Procedure:

-test officer gives initial recommendation to police

-if charges have been laid, then the kid continues to meet w/ test officer and they give the social image to court

-in court:

court reads the charges and asks the kid if he admits or not

if the kid pleads not guilty, then both sides fight w/ evidence/witnesses

curious: 98% of cases end up guilty: b/c “reasonable doubt” is understood very strictly

àthus many people plead guilty when not, and many have deals

if adult pleads guilty, then he is automatically found guilty and the sentence is a matter of judges’ opinion. Not so with kids – if the kid pleads guilty, then he is sent to Test officer, and after meeting the kid, the Officer decides whether to convict the kid and recommendations for treatment. Until the conviction, the Testing services gives services to rehabilitate the kid and avoid downwards spiral and future victims. The testing officer has 3 months to observe the kid b/f recommendation for/against conviction and can ask for more if necessary
the recommendation deals w/:

kid’s context
reference to crime
recommendations -2 parts of recommendation:

convict or not
Treatment

-unlike adult cases, there is no split b/c seriousness of crime in the juvenile court system – and they have more powers. So regional attorney general can ask even serious cases [which involves kids] to be sent to juvenile courts [who have status of peace court]

-2^nd order court [regional] when judging an appeal from a juvenile court, they are also under juvenile court status – so they also need recommendations from testing officer

-the juvenile courts see kid b/f the crime

-in Israeli law, you can’t put a kid in jail if he’s under 12 [true to age of conviction and not age of the crime]

-if sentence includes a treatment plan, then the Testing office is in charge of following up on it

Class 11/6/2007

Juvenile delinquency

Stages:

police investigation
testing office:

12-13 years old

meeting kid and his family/school/work/other therapeutic plans
then recommendation to charge or not charge
if police bypass this, the court can cancel the charges

13-18

Testing is optional b/f the charges

-new thing: the right to שימוע - -if someone is about to be charged – he has a right to speak

police can either charge or close the file

reasons for closing the file:

lack of evidence
no guilt – kinda rare
no public interest in file [he did the act but it wasn’t a crime] – usually low-level crimes/no need to go to court
non-charging – only for youths. The youth signs a form saying he admits to the crime, but agrees to cooperate w/ testing office – and if no other police complain in next 6 months, then no charges will be laid – this only happens in first complaints against the kid, and when it is a low-level crime. The idea being reducing the # of complaints against the youth and to reduce stigma and court overburden.

Assumption the actual meeting w/ police is a preventative force
Criticism: it is used discrimination. So it’s standards were changed and is now called conditional therapy

charge

the charge is read: the youth can plead guilty/not guilty

if not guilty is pled, then there is the proving stage – evidence/witnesses

conviction:

w/ adults, the court convicts if it finds the person guilty
w/ youths, it just decides whether the kid did the crime or not

if kid pleads guilty or is found guilty, he is referred to the testing office
can’t get a sentence b/w testing office brings recommendation. Sometimes, therapy is the court sentence. In worse cases, the testing office can put kid under observation

clause 20 of youth law – sentencing and punishment

youth can be put in observation for 3 months with an option for another month

newe choresh is one place which does this

-the testing office runs under the function of a forced therapy – i.e. the court sentencing depends on the process of rehabilitation

Recommendation of test officer:

personal background
regard to the crime – i.e. is he aware of crime/regret/etc…
recommendation

convict/not convict – 3 options

conviction
therapy recommendation
off the hook w/o court order [24th clause of youth crime law]:

àthose cases where it should really have ended b/f coming to court – the actual police was enough warning

Therapy recommendations:

When court doesn’t convict but rather rehabilitate [clause 26 of youth treatment law]

commitment – conditional fine - if same crime done w/I 2 years
fine
תרומה – groups that work for the community
Public service – volunteering in the community
Inspection – i.e. be in touch w/ testing office

Recommendation of testing officer:

conviction or not
punishment – if court decides on punishment, it is either:

jail term
conditional jail
jail w/ public service

-usually, testing office’s recommendation is accepted – but supreme court has been calling to not be the testing office’s signature

-after recommendation, each side has a say b/f the sentence is done

-usually prosecutor tries to get tougher sentence while defense tried to get softer sentence

àusually, parents, lawyers, testing officer, school principle, Youth worker, and [rare] - victim

-under age 14 - no jail term – absurd: you can arrest but not jail him! The thing is that it the sentencing date but not crime date

תהליכי איחוי

-attempts to rectify situation

-many crimes have victims as well -w/ time, there is more weight given to the victim

ài.e. won’t be brought into all of trial or told the youth’s result

-a few years ago, the law “victim of a crime’s rights” was passed – i.e. after a closing/settlement w/ the criminal is done, it has to report to the victim of the crime

àwe see this in the being b/w victim and suspect

Formats

i.e. איחוי-an attempt to rectify b/w sides

קד”מ – קבוצת דיון משפחתית

Done by testing service or private [outsourced] agency

àfirst , an objective, 3^rd party testing officer [or in agencies – SW] asks suspect if he wants to do this [and he feels regret] and then the victim. If they say yes, then they meet after preparation of both sides. Usually police officer is present. And it involves a rehabilitative act

àthis process allows for closure for the victim

-at first, the victim says what he is experiencing

àtries to fix not through revenge

Class 18/6/2007

קדם = קבוצת דיון משפחתי

-this program is meant to meet b/w families to come up w/ a rehabilitative plan

-גישור is another program

-the איחוי programs are meant to minimize damage and give an answer to emotional/social/economic needs of the victim. It involves taking responsibility/apology/rejecting the acceptability of the act by the perpetrator

àhe has to take responsibility for his act

àthe victim has to agree to this too before it is done instead of court [actually, both sides have to agree to this], and the perpetrator has to agree to the basic facts of the event. The program is supposed to start a dialogue and both sides have to come out feeling that justice was done.

-in such a program, there is no scaring – it is not meant to send a רטייה message to all society. Instead, there is an attempt to strengthen the community’s ability to deal w/ its problem w/o relying on state facilities

àthe hope is that this will be an alternative to courts – but in severe cases, it ill go to court. The appeasement program might be part of the trial, but the court will be the main force behind the process

-Sex crimes/family violence/terrorism are kinds of crimes which you can’t have the appeasement process – criticism: you can fix a lot w/I family violence this way

--new topic--

Handicapp*ed people

2 kind of handicapped relevant to this class:

mentally retarded people
mental disorders

retarded - פיגור problems – חוק הסעד – טיפול במתבגרים – 1969

definition: mental development is lacking, and it influences his adjustment, and he needs treatment. Adjustment means to be able to deal w/ social responsibility/personal autonomy in relations to his age. The following factors are considered:

sensomotoric skills
communication skills
socialization skills
self-help skills [can he dress/clean/eat by himself]

-legally speaking, when a person’s ability is lacking at age 18, you can diagnose him as retarded [until then, it is “conditional diagnosis”]

-retardation levels: easy/medium/hard/profound

-the law says that: if doctor/parent/teacher/whatever thinks a kid is mentally retarded, he is supposed to report to פקיד סעד and they report to parents. The פריד סעד has some stuff he can do to make sure that things will be done for the kid:

-the פקיד סעד makes a committee

Diagnosis committee

פקיד סעד
Psychologist
Psychiatrist
Educational figure
Children’s doctor

àafter the committee convenes and sees the kid and decides what the story is, they decide how to treat. They take into consideration the wills of those responsible over him, the actual retarded person/to the question of how dangerous he is/his religion

àin necessary, they decide whether the person needs an encompassing program, or a day program

Clause 7a(b) of the law says: when deciding on the encompassing [out of home] program, there is preference for living in the community

-beyond this, this committee also allows the retarded person to get BTL – ביטוח לאומי

Clause 19 of the law: deal w/ arrest of a retarded person. Courts will not proceed w/ the case but rather suggest rehabilitative measures [if proven that the retarded person can’t be held liable] àmight need another committee to verify the retard status

שרות למען המפגר- service for the retard – is part of tha social services in Israel – they are all over Israel

Questions that may come up:

what are the ramifications of retarded person’s agreements [i.e. when having sex]

i.e. contracts

חוק שיוון זכויות לאנשים עם מוגבלויות

àdeals with their rights

ài.e. clause 2 – they have a right to full members of society w/ special regard to their special situation

àcourts might give his word more weight if his retardation is lighter

-social services give services to retarded people, but there is a limit in # of recipients b/c of the definition clause of developmental problems “needing treatment” and “adjustment problems”

àthe legal definition does not involve those w/ problems “needing treatment” and “adjustment problems” not based on developmental problem – i.e. if someone has retardation after an accident and not b/c developmental reasons, he does not have legal answers

-everyone is legally able to be judged except if court or the diagnostic committees

ài.e. when someone less than 18 – the law limits his legal ability – i.e. his signature needs parental approval – parents can even cancel his kid’s signature retroactively

-some things, i.e. the usual things that minors do, kids do have legal standing: i.e. agreements w/ employer. But other things, i.e. renting apartments àw/ things that minors usually do not do – their signature is invalid

חוק הכשרות המשפטית ואפוטרופסות –legal ability and guardianship

àassumes that everyone is liable for actions from birth to death, unless otherwise stated in law or by court ài.e. minors’s liability is limited by the law [needs adult representation]

8^th clause of חוק הכשרות המשפטית ואפוטרופסות

A person w/ mental retardation or emotional disorder, court can label him as legally unable – פסול דין àwhen he can’t take care of himselfàthis status limits or negates totally his legal independence àhis status b/c like a minor [i.e. needs guardian permission for most things]

ànot all retards and psychiatric patients get this status

-this status can change, if he proves otherwise later on, or the court claimed the person to be legally unliable yet was wrong/person’s situation improved

Guardian –could be a private person/company/general guardian [a body in legal system]/health ministry representative/holocaust remembering agency

Question -court will could assign a guardian?

Answer: law claims that several people can get this status:

a minor whose 2 parents dies or are פסולי דין or their guardianship was negated or do not fulfill their parental duties for no apparent reasonable reason [i.e. not in cases where the parents are temporarily sick]
for a פסול דין
For a person who for temporary or permanently take care of himself [guardian needs to be someone who wants and can do this task]
A person we’re unable to identity [i.e. abandoned infant/wounded person after a terror attack
Embryos in addicted parents

Guardian could be temporary or permanent
Has to deal w/ everything related to the person: education/health/propery

Except if there is a limitation clause limiting the area of guardianship

-guardianship appointment - related to h.m. he is limited and how much family can help him out w/ special need

Class – 25/7/2007

mental disorders

-2 main areas of discussion in this class

החוק לטיפול בנפגעי נפש –1991

Deals w/ principles and ways of treatment – i.e. person won’t be hospitalized b/f undergoing preliminary physical and emotional testing

After all, forced hospitalization is negating personal rights!

Thus diff. b/w hospitalization by force vs. by will

The law differentiates b/w civil and criminal hospitalization

Criminal: if a court fears that the criminal is emotionally sick –they send him to forced hospitalization or forced mental treatment in outsourced clinics

-clauses 15/16 speak about this. If someone can’t tell diff. b/w good and bad, then he can not criminally liable, so they get sent to hospital instead

àafter they get healthy again, they get discharged – but lately, there is awareness of needing to test for danger levels of the discharged person

Civil: the regional psychiatrist פסיכיאטר מחוזי - can ask for a certain person to undergo for a checkup on someone, and after it, he thinks that the person is a danger to others or to himself, he can ask for hospitalization

-criteria for a checkup: he

a) gets evidence that a person is ill and his judgment and reality testing is severely limited -clause 6/7:

b) 1)he might be putting himself or others at risk. If it is immediate, you have an “urgent” request for checkup 2) taking care of himself is limited 3) causing suffering to others 4) causing property damage.

c) If the person refuses –then the regional Psychiatrist General can have him hospitalized/there is a review committee every 6 month for him/when ready to be discharged, he is might be asked to have forced checkups in local clinics, or might not have checkups./ you can appeal the psychiatric committee

rehabilitation law חוק שיקום נכי נפש בקהילה – 2000

-tries to solve the revolving door phenomenon in the psychiatric hospitalization population -the law tries to advance the mental disorder rehabilitation to get maximum independence and life quality while respecting their human rights

àin like of the Basic Law, this law tries to give them services in the community = סל שיקום

-but there are budgetary constraints –so many people don’t get it and some groups are categorically excluded [i.e. those charged in court]

Places of help for the emotionally sick w/I סל שיקום

Housing
training and work placement in regular or protected jobs
education

teaching Hebrew to immigrants
completion of elementary school education
secondary school level education
computer education

social/leisure clubs which focus on social skills
family advising
dentistry
general person taking care of all-encompassing needs

Combining social works in legal offices

-new awareness that legal experts also need to deal w/ social parts behind the criminal behaviors –models were imported from the USA to Israel lately

àsocial workers are able to find and help w/ those issues [i.e. refer client to community resources] – after all, those who did a crime undergo stresses like addictions/economic hardships/emotional problems/family stresses

àso legal experts need more access to testing officers/social services/criminal rehabilitation/drug rehabilitation/psychiatric hospitalizations/violence rehab/פקידי סעד/psychiatrists, psychologists and criminologists

àa person who is untrained for this [i.e. the lawyer] – it is not an idea situation for this, and the client will not get adequate help in his needs. It might even come out as lawyers chose irrelevant experts or programs which do not help and even harm the client along the way. Communication w/ different professions might have mis-communications, so SW in the legal service help mediate b/w the lawyers and the social/emotional services [even though there may be some tension b/e the two professions]

àallows the legal service to be more encompassing

-this cooperation is not always clear, especially for lawyers appointed by the state

Class – 2/7/2007

-social worker’s part in Law office

The fact that a lawyer is not a therapy expert, he doesn’t know the terms and this may harm the client

-he can be a referring force/map out services/rights of client/contact social services when needed

SW should give preliminary report to attorney general when social services needs to be involved and they do not know the client yet [and thus we need more time] – this gives a broader image of the client and his needs – even in beginning stage of court case

-the therapist may give a certain image out of interest – so you can cross examine him

when SW works in law office can give better info to testing office about the client – i.e. when someone gets arrested in Tel Aviv and he lives in the north
will help in cooperation b/w lawyer and client
SW will help lawyer understand expert opinion, and help build a rehabilitation plan for the client
The social worker will answer the client’s needs even after the criminal process in helping w/ services in the community

important-the testing office recommendation is not always accepted by the court

-next topic: SW law – who can work as a SW and how. Then – secrecy/privacy issues

Case:

A student of SW who Haifa university kicked out b/c in her residency in 1997. this was because she was supposed to meet the parents of a kid, which she claimed that she did, while she did not really meet them. She even wrote fictional reports/ she had a history of cheating on exams. While being suspended for year from university, she went to psychotherapy in the university’s clinic. After a year, she appealed the decision to kick her out, and it was not accepted – she was banned from SW studies. She keeps on appealing the university’s disciplinary board, w/ lawyer/therapist – yet they were not accepted. They claimed that she needs more time to prove her trustworthiness. So she goes to court w/ her claim that she needs to be reaccepted. Court rejects her claim and says that the social work profession requires more than academic studies but also personality factors like integrity/etc…, and the school of SW has a right to decide who is fitting for the job, beyond academics, but also judging by personality and behaviors, especially as seen in residency [which is an integral part of their studies].

-her claim was that the university was negating her freedom of work [basic law] – as seen in this case, basic laws are not blindly overriding – so protection of the weak of the society is more important than an individual’s right to chose his profession freely

àand besides, since her suspension is limited to 3 years, it is also proportional too!

social worker law

-This law organizes the profession legally -until then, the law did not define who can work as a SW

2 main criteria:

will have a degree in Social Work in an academic institution in Israel [if studied abroad, there is a procedure]
being written in the social worker’s union

-the point is to have supervision/inspection over the profession

-in 1982, the social minister decided that there needs to be an academization of the SW field. Until then, anyone w/ a certain degree [listed in the law] could be a SW

àthen gov’t institutions started sending their SW to study

Question: what happens w/ those student already studying? Can they work as SW in light of that new law?

Answer: Orot college was such a program and the deputy social minister come to the understanding that for 4 years, the college will have gov’t inspection over contents of study and who studies. If this program gets the gov’t body in charge of higher learning approves it’s academization –then the college can then continue giving SW degrees.

-the SW union sues in supreme court saying that this is against the social services’ policy of academization – and that this was a political move!!!! Court refuses to get into the academization process, and there is a debate in policy in this matter. Court says that the decision was made w/ authority- the work and social minister can get involved in this and did get inspection in! and he has the right to make his policies! Court says that the political claim is unsubstantiated. – so this decision of the minister might suck, but its legal.

-social work law enfixes who and how SW can work

How: “as accepted by the SW profession” – this is a very amorphic definition!

Purpose: to improve individual’s function in society [while psychologist law is more concrete – helping in the emotional realm] – still here, the law is also amorphic

-SW law claims that you need תקנות like ethics. So this brought up 10 clauses which by not following those ethical clauses, you break the law.

SW ethics book:

-lists actions based on values of SW:

equality
Autonomy
Client involvement in decisions
Privacy/secrecy [we’ll talk about this next time]
no discrimination based on handicapped

-clause 7/8 is a primary law in Israel [privacy and secrecy]

-the ethics code of SW refers to SW b/h as a social agent. The goal of the profession is to make the best of your job w/I honesty in personal b/h

-from about 70 clauses in SW ethics code, the law took 10 of them and made them into the law [know them for the exam!!!]

-the law considers SW a real profession which is aimed to improve the individual/family/society’s function in therapy/rehabilitation and w/ professional techniques used by SW. there is a problem here! You can’t define something w/ itself – i.e. you can’t explain what a chair is by saying that it is a chair.

So still, you have the aforementioned 2 overriding principles

Class – 9/7/2007

The law says: -a person can’t be a SW unless he is a SW [learnt it in an accredited place] and is registered

Privacy and secrecy

-every client has a right to privacy and every SW is obligated to secrecy

-7^th clause of SW says: the client has a right to get info about his treatment – excluding info about other people or the SW’s private notes [i.e. not the client’s file]. The SW has a right not to give all the info if he thinks that there will be damage w/ giving the info. This move needs approval. Lately, there were court-cases around that issue.

-the main question here is when and to who the info is given. So if the client agrees to the SW giving info [secrecy waiver] –then the SW can give info to the person agreed on.

-the law says when he can turn for info [see clause 8 for info – imp!!!]

סוד מקצועי

(א)מידע על אדם שהגיע לעובד סוציאלי במסגרת מקצועו, חובה עליו לשמרו בסוד ואינו רשאי לגלותו אלא באחת מאלה:

(1) האדם שעליו המידע הסכים בכתב לגילוי לאחר שהוסברה לו משמעות ההסכמה, זולת אם העובד הסוציאלי שוכנע שהגילוי עלול לפגוע באותו אדם או בבן משפחתו;

(2) הגילוי הוא של מידע שנמסר לעובד סוציאלי שלא על ידי האדם שעליו המידע, ובלבד שהעובד הסוציאלי שוכנע שהמידע דרוש לשם טיפול באותו אדם או בבן משפחתו;

(3) הגילוי הוא של מידע שנמסר לעובד סוציאלי בידי האדם שעליו המידע, ובלבד שהעובד הסוציאלי שוכנע שהמידע דרוש לשם טיפול בילדיו הקטינים של אותו אדם;

(4) הגילוי דרוש לשם מניעת פגיעה באדם שעליו המידע או באדם אחר;

(5)קיימת בחוק חובה או רשות לגילוי המידע או לאיסוף המידע;

(6)הגילוי נדרש על ידי ועדת המשמעת כמשמעותה בחוק זה;

(7) הגילוי דרוש למטרת פיקוח מקצועי על עבודת עובדים סוציאליים או הדרכתם ובלבד שהמידע יימסר רק לבעלי תפקידים ועל פי כללים שקבע השר לאחר התייעצות עם המועצה;

(8) בית משפט התיר את גילוי המידע, אם נוכח שקיימות נסיבות מיוחדות המצדיקות זאת.

(ב) הוראות סעיף קטן (א) חלות גם על כל אדם שקיבל מידע לפי הסעיף הקטן האמור.

-some court cases dealt w/ when SW has to testify in court as to things said in therapy

àthis is a blow to secrecy

2 kinds of secrecy levels

Complete secrecy

-cases when the professional doesn’t have to say anything about the client [i.e. lawyers]

Relative [partial] secrecy

-when the professional does not has to testify unless court said otherwise [and despite secrecy law] – this is for doctors, psychologists, SW, religious leaders

50a of פקודת הראיות

-as defined by SW law, does not have to testify about someone in his treatment, and the info got to him, as part of his job as a SW, and is a kind of thing that would generally be given to a SW w/ the belief that it will stay secret [unless the client signed a waiver, or the court decided it is too important for justice than not to be heard in the court]

-this law gives the SW secrecy rights, and parallels his status to that of psychologists so to encourage the working together b/w client and therapist w/ building trust relationships, and where the client knows that what he said to the SW are secret and doesn’t fear exposing info.

-court has to decide and not giving the info will harm his defense. On the other hand, the court has to decide when the info will harm the client and thus the court has to come to a fair balance

Example 1: client asks to waiver secrecy

the SW is working in the Social services, and treating a person who were raped. There is a gap b/w her info to the police and to her SW. suspect asks the accuser’s file to be opened. It was partially opened.

Court refers to the aforementioned clause –in balancing the defendants’ right to have a fair defense and the accuser’s right to secrecy. The court assumed that this ruling is “reasonable” – and doesn’t harm the accuser. But it has to be in balance – the question is h.m. info you can give w/o harming the other side. –the main question is which balance harms least

Example 2: court asks

-the SW wants to testify that she thinks that her client is abusing his son. The dad claims that that is his personal problem. The SW asks to testify despite the client’s resistance to this [and his right to secrecy] – the court is shown the SW’s police testimony. The court decides that the revelation of this info is more important than the right to secrecy. The court decides that the person is not “חסר ישע” but is borderline, and thus it is hard to say that in his state, he can be taken into account when we look at his resistance to opening up the info

There are things that do not go well w/ having a lawyer representing you. The meeting w/ פק”ס to prepare a report is not a lawyer kind of thing. Thus the court set a boundary and says that פק”ס can meet in private w/ client so he can do his job

àפק”ס, unlike the other SW, are not bound by secrecy and have to report

Exam

Example of a test question:

-According to 50a of פקודת הראיות – the secrecy of the SW is partial/never/etc…

-the municipal psychiatrist has a right to state that a person needs an urgent need for psychiatric evaluation. Which criteria are needed?: property damage/causes suffering to other/the person is sick and thus has bad reality testing/he can’t care for himself

Tip: know criteria for certain processes

End of course!!!!!