2ND URGENT REQUEST FOR ACTION: Transparency Needed in Family Court Proceedings

On October 30, 2024, at 10:49 PM, a follow-up email was sent to the San Mateo Board of Supervisors Domestic Violence Council. The email reads:

Dear Board of Supervisors and Members of the DV Council,

On October 21, I submitted an email to your offices detailing critical concerns regarding transparency and accessibility in the Superior Court's current court-watching policies. Despite addressing this message to the entire Board of Supervisors and all members of the DV Council, I have yet to receive a response from any of you. Given the substantive issues raised, including potential ADA violations and the constitutional implications for domestic violence survivors, this silence is deeply concerning.

As I mentioned in my initial correspondence, the changes in court-watching access and ADA accommodations place both litigants and concerned citizens at a significant disadvantage. These systemic barriers violate constitutional principles of transparency and fair hearings, infringing upon due process and public oversight rights.

This follow-up serves as a formal request for your immediate advocacy to ensure that court-watcher policies align with constitutional standards, ADA requirements, and public access rights. I expect a response by November 5, 2024, outlining the steps your offices will take to advocate for changes to these restrictive policies. Should I not receive a timely reply, I may be compelled to pursue alternative actions, including escalation through legal channels, to secure these essential rights.

I appreciate your prompt attention to these issues, which affect the rights and welfare of many in our community.

To date, a response has not been received to either email. The lack of response from the San Mateo Board of Supervisors and the Domestic Violence Council to these serious concerns could stem from a variety of factors, including bureaucratic delays, reluctance to address sensitive issues involving the judiciary, or even a lack of urgency on matters that challenge established policies.

In many cases, silence from oversight bodies may reflect discomfort with, or even resistance to, acknowledging potential flaws within interconnected systems like family court, ADA compliance, and public access rights. These organizations may be hesitant to address issues that could require substantial changes in policy or create legal liabilities. Additionally, when questions are raised about transparency and fairness, some officials may choose to delay or avoid engagement, possibly hoping that the issue will subside.

The absence of a response, particularly on matters of constitutional rights and ADA compliance, may also indicate a disconnect between the responsibilities these bodies claim to uphold and the actions (or inaction) they take when concerns are raised.

Respectfully,

Ren DeMello