The Watchdogs No One Talks About: Civil Grand Juries and Family Court Oversight
Editor’s Note: At One Mom’s Battle, we believe that real change requires a multi-pronged approach. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the systemic failures in our family court system. Legislative reform is critical but it’s not enough. Media coverage is powerful but it won’t fix everything. While the system may feel broken beyond repair, burning it down and starting from scratch isn’t a realistic path forward. We need all hands on deck, turning over every stone.
This blog highlights one of those stones: the Civil Grand Jury system in California. It’s an often overlooked tool for oversight and accountability, particularly when public funds are used to contract with court-appointed professionals. We encourage you to read with curiosity and then explore what mechanisms may exist in your own state to follow suit. This is one angle of many, and it’s going to take all of us, from every direction, to create lasting change.
This article was contributed by a Civil Grand Juror in California who has chosen to remain anonymous. Her goal is to help others understand how Civil Grand Juries can be a powerful, confidential avenue for oversight and reform, particularly when public funds are used to contract with court-appointed professionals.
California Civil Grand Juries: Oversight Authority Over County Operations and Court-Contracted Professionals
California’s 58 counties each impanel a Civil Grand Jury every year as an independent watchdog body. Few are even aware of the operations of the civil grand jury and even less know of the complaint procedures. These juries of citizens are empowered to investigate local government operations, ensure public funds are properly used, and recommend reforms. A Civil Grand Jury can examine a wide range of county and city functions including the contracts and conduct of professionals appointed to work in courts in order to protect the public interest. While grand juries cannot re-evaluate or overturn judicial decisions, they can scrutinize the administrative and financial aspects of court-related services. For example, if county funds pay for minors’ counsel, therapists, or other court-appointed experts, the grand jury may review whether those professionals are fulfilling their contracts and using public money appropriately. This article explains the legal authority of Civil Grand Juries under California law, describes what they can and cannot investigate, gives examples of past investigations into court-connected contractors, and provides practical guidance on reporting concerns to a grand jury. The best part for all those restricted with gag orders or fear retaliation is that all investigations are executed with confidentiality protections that encourage whistleblowers and concerned citizens to come forward.
Legal Authority of Civil Grand Juries in California
Every California county’s Civil Grand Jury derives its authority from both the state Constitution and statutes. Section 23 of Article I of the California Constitution mandates that at least one grand jury be summoned annually in each county. This constitutional mandate is implemented by California Penal Code §§ 888–939.91, which sets forth how grand jurors are selected and defines the grand jury’s watchdog and indictment functions. In broad terms, these laws empower grand juries to investigate local government operations (the “watchdog” or civil oversight function) and, separately, to issue criminal indictments or accusations in certain cases. Under the Penal Code, a Civil Grand Jury has a duty to investigate and report on county government. Penal Code § 925 explicitly provides: “The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county…” In addition, Penal Code § 925a authorizes grand juries to investigate city government in the county in a similar manner (for instance, they may review the books, records, and performance of an incorporated city’s departments). Most importantly, this includes “outside contractors.” Their fact-finding can lead to written reports containing findings and recommendations. These reports act as a powerful tool for public accountability: by law, local authorities must respond to the grand jury’s findings and recommendations.
California law also equips grand juries with additional powers to enforce accountability. Under Government Code §§ 3060–3075 a civil grand jury may initiate an accusation against a public official for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. An accusation is a formal process (distinct from a criminal indictment) that, if upheld in court, can result in the official’s removal from office. This means that if a grand jury’s investigation uncovers egregious wrongdoing by a county or city official for example, evidence that an official conspired to defraud the county or grossly abused their authority, the grand jury can vote to present an accusation to remove that official. Such actions are relatively rare, but they underscore the grand jury’s role as a guardian of the public trust.
It should be noted that California’s Government Code and other statutes contain numerous provisions governing public contracting and ethical conduct which grand juries may invoke or reference in their investigations. For instance, Government Code § 1090 prohibits public officials from having a financial interest in any contract they make in their official capacity. This conflict-of-interest law carries civil and criminal penalties, and a grand jury investigation into a questionable contract could highlight violations of §1090 if officials steered contracts to themselves, relatives, or business partners. Grand juries are alert to such concerns: a 2024 El Dorado County grand jury report, for example, explicitly noted that:
“Government Code 1090 prohibits public officials or employees, while acting in their official capacities, from making contracts in which they are financially interested”.
By exposing conflicts of interest or violations of contracting rules, a grand jury can prompt corrective action or referral to law enforcement. In general, grand juries have wide latitude to review compliance with government contracting laws such as competitive bidding requirements, contract approval procedures, and financial management standards whenever those issues intersect with the operations of local government. The Penal Code even allows a grand jury, with the county board of supervisors’ agreement, to hire an expert if specialized assistance is needed to examine complex contracts or finances (Penal Code § 926).
In summary, California civil grand juries have a strong legal foundation to act as independent auditors and investigators of local government. They draw their authority from Penal Code §§ 888–939.91 (for general powers and duties) from specific sections like § 925/925a (county/city investigations), and from Government Code provisions like § 3060 (removing misbehaving officials). This empowers them to delve into how county agencies function, how public funds are spent, and whether officials and contractors are acting in the public’s best interest. This is where the “contractors” from the Family Court list come in.
Scope of What Grand Juries Can and Cannot Investigate
A Civil Grand Jury’s jurisdiction is broad over local government, but it is not unlimited. Understanding these boundaries is crucial, especially for those looking to report issues for county paid professionals to ensure that complaints are specifically tailored to ensure it is not dismissed due to jurisdictional issues.
What Grand Juries Can Investigate: The grand jury’s “watchdog” mandate allows it to examine “all aspects of county and city government and special districts to ensure that the best interests of residents are being served.” In practice, this means a grand jury can scrutinize the policies, procedures, and performance of any county department, agency, or official. It can inspect and audit financial records to make sure public funds are properly accounted for and legally spent. For example, a grand jury might review a county’s child protective agency to ensure best policies of practice, such as flagging cases on intake as custody disputes is not creating a bias for the investigator. In the realm of contracts and vendors, this authority extends to checking that government contracts (including those for professional services) are awarded and managed in accordance with the law and that the county is getting what it pays for and even audit the contractors qualifications. If there are signs of waste, fraud, or abuse in any local agency such as overbilling by a contractor, embezzlement of public money, or simply incompetent management. The grand jury can investigate and bring those issues to light. Moreover, if evidence of criminal conduct emerges, the grand jury can ask the district attorney to present it to either the same grand jury or a separate criminal grand jury for indictment. As mentioned, if the misconduct involves a public official’s breach of duty, the grand jury can pursue an accusation under Gov. Code § 3060.
What Grand Juries Cannot Investigate: There are clear limits set by law to avoid separation-of-powers conflicts and to focus the grand jury on local matters. Grand juries generally have no jurisdiction over the judiciary or specific court cases. In other words, a civil grand jury is not an appeals court or a disciplinary board for judges. They cannot investigate judicial decisions or trial outcomes. The grand jury can only investigate the experts and counsel if they have a contract with the city or county.
It’s important to highlight this distinction: Grand juries cannot investigate or second-guess the merits of court rulings, but they can investigate the operations and programs connected to the courts, as long as those fall under local government responsibility. For instance, a grand jury would not weigh in on whether a particular child custody decision was right or wrong, but it could examine whether a court-appointed contractor (like a minor’s counsel or a counseling service paid with public funds) is adhering to their contract and ethical standards. This nuance allows oversight of the administrative side of the justice system without infringing on the judiciary’s independence in adjudicating cases.
In summary, civil grand juries can investigate local government agencies, officials, contracts, and expenditures, focusing on efficiency, legality, and integrity
Investigating Court-Appointed Professionals and Contracts
One area where the grand jury’s authority often overlaps with the court system is in the oversight of court-appointed professionals and court-connected services that involve public resources. Many Californians are surprised to learn that even though something happens in a courtroom (for example, a family law case where a child’s attorney or a therapist is appointed), there may be aspects of that service which are fair game for a grand jury investigation. The key is whether those services are part of county operations or use public funds. If they are, then the grand jury can examine them to ensure proper contracting, compliance, and accountability.
Contracts with Minors’ Counsel: In contentious custody disputes, California courts can appoint an attorney to represent the best interests of the child (often called “minor’s counsel,” under Family Code § 3150). Depending on the county, the funding and contracting for minors’ counsel may involve public money. Sometimes the parents are ordered to pay the minor’s counsel’s fees, but if neither parent can afford it, the county might cover the cost. Some counties have formal contracts or panels for minors’ counsel services. For example, a county might contract with a panel of qualified attorneys or a legal organization to provide representation for children in family court. Because these arrangements can involve county funds or oversight by a county department (such as a county’s indigent defense program or a Superior Court budget that ultimately comes from state/local funding), a grand jury can investigate whether the program is operating correctly. A grand jury might ask: Are the court-appointed child attorneys meeting the qualifications and training requirements set by law (see California Rules of Court 5.242 for minors’ counsel qualifications? Are they carrying out their duties effectively, or are there complaints of children’s voices not being heard? Is the billing for their services handled properly? For instance, if the county pays, are the invoices reasonable and in line with the contract terms? Are there any conflicts of interest in how minors’ counsel are selected? These administrative and financial questions fall squarely under the grand jury’s purview of ensuring public services are provided legally and efficiently.
Grand juries in the past have indeed looked at such issues. In San Diego County, for example, a Grand Jury in 1991–92 investigated the juvenile dependency system and related services, and voiced strong support for maintaining independent minors’ counsel for children. They were alarmed at moves to cut costs by limiting children’s attorneys. The grand jury emphasized that a minor’s counsel can be the “only totally objective party” in court proceedings if they perform their investigative role properly. In the same set of reports, that San Diego Grand Jury also flagged concerns that minors’ counsel must remain independent and thorough in representing children, implicitly warning against any cost-cutting measure that would compromise their effectiveness.
Therapists, Evaluators, and Other Court-Connected Practitioners: Family courts and juvenile courts often rely on outside professionals like therapists, psychologists, mediators, co-parenting counselors, guardians ad litem, supervised visitation monitors, and so on to provide services or expert input in cases. Sometimes these professionals are in private practice and paid by the parties, but in many instances they are part of programs funded or run by the county. For example, a county might maintain a court-approved list of therapists for child counseling or abuse treatment programs that parents and children are ordered to attend, possibly under county contracts or oversight. Grand juries can and do review how these rosters are maintained and whether the professionals on them are held to appropriate standards. The San Diego County Grand Jury (1991-1992), mentioned above raised exactly this issue: it expressed “concern about the court-approved list of therapists” used in child abuse and dependency cases. The jury identified problems such as inadequate vetting of therapists’ professional competency, potential bias or conflicts (e.g. “ongoing personal relationships with social workers” that could compromise independence), lack of cultural competency, and “inadequate professional scrutiny” of the therapists on the court’s list. Essentially, the grand jury was shining a light on a cozy system where certain therapists were routinely appointed in cases without enough oversight. It recommended thorough examination of such policies. For instance, it criticized a requirement in a counseling program that parents must admit to certain conduct as a precondition to reunification, noting many experts disapproved of that policy. By investigating these issues, the grand jury was able to recommend improvements like better qualifications checks and monitoring of therapy providers attached to the court system. Another county’s grand jury could similarly look into whether court-appointed child custody evaluators (who conduct evaluations in divorce cases) meet state licensing requirements and timelines, or whether reunification therapy contracts are producing results or just billing the county while cases drag on.
Compliance with Contracts and Use of Public Funds: A unifying theme in grand jury oversight is ensuring that public funds are not misused. Many court-related professionals, though they operate in a legal case, are paid through county budgets, grants, or contracts. This opens the door for the grand jury to ask if taxpayers are getting their money’s worth. For example, if a county contracts with a counseling agency to provide therapy to low-income families involved in dependency court, the grand jury can audit that agency’s performance and billing. Are they overbilling the county or charging for sessions not actually provided? Do they have the credentials and staff promised in the contract? Are outcomes being tracked? If an investigation found, say, that a therapist without proper licensing was being appointed to cases due to a lax selection process, the grand jury would highlight that violation and demand corrective action.
Grand juries also pay attention to potential abuses like overbilling or unnecessary prolonging of services. An unscrupulous contractor might, for instance, extend a therapy program far beyond what is needed just to keep collecting fees, or a court-appointed attorney might churn a case to bill more hours if paid by the county. These are exactly the kind of practices a grand jury will find if evidence is provided. In Trinity County, the 2021–2022 Civil Grand Jury investigated the contract of the County Counsel’s office, which had been outsourced to a private law firm, after receiving a complaint that the law firm (as county counsel) “profited by leading the County into litigation.” In reviewing that situation, the grand jury sought detailed billing records to determine if the firm had indeed prolonged cases for profit. The investigation met resistance from the firm and officials claimed attorney–client privilege and heavily redacted the invoices provided to the grand jury. The grand jury noted this lack of transparency as a major concern, since it prevented them from assessing what services were billed and whether the charges were appropriate. Even though this example involves County Counsel (a government attorney role) rather than a family-court therapist, the principle is similar: the grand jury was examining a contracted professional’s compliance with their duties and the integrity of billing to the county. The fact that information was withheld became a finding in itself highlighting poor transparency and the need for better oversight of such contracts. This illustrates that a grand jury can investigate overbilling or financial impropriety by any contractor tied to county government, including those serving court-related functions. If a pattern of overcharging or unnecessary work is found, the grand jury can recommend tighter contract management, or even refer the matter to prosecutors under fraud or false claims statutes.
Ensuring Qualifications and Ethical Conduct: Another angle is verifying that court-appointed professionals meet the required qualifications and ethical standards, especially when the court or county maintains a roster or gives an official stamp of approval. If minors’ counsel must have certain experience (as per the Rules of Court) or if custody evaluators must be licensed and attend update trainings, the grand jury could check whether those rules are actually being enforced by the local court administration. Likewise, a grand jury might respond to complaints that certain therapists or visitation monitors are unqualified or biased yet continue to receive court appointments. Since the court system’s integrity is at stake in such situations, a grand jury’s objective review can be very impactful. While they cannot fire a professional or invalidate a particular case’s outcome, their report can pressure the supervising entities (like the court’s administration or county officials who contract with the professional) to tighten standards or remove problem providers from the approved list.
Intersection with Government Codes: Government contracting laws often require fairness and prudence, e.g., requiring competitive bids for contracts above certain amounts, disallowing conflicts of interest (Gov. Code § 1090) and mandating that funds be spent only for authorized purposes. A grand jury investigation into court-related contracts will consider these angles. For example, if a county awarded a lucrative contract for a dependency court expert witnesses without any bidding or to a relative of a decision-maker, that could violate both the spirit of open contracting and possibly conflict of interest laws. The grand jury could call that out. Even if not illegal, they might flag the lack of competitive process as a bad practice and recommend the county adopt stricter procurement rules. Indeed, grand jury reports often include recommendations like “the County revise its contract rules to include specific requirements and prohibitions…” to prevent future abuse. In one case, a Sacramento County Grand Jury (2004-2005) examined city contracts and pointed to “numerous unmistakable violations of Government Code 1090” in how a city council approved contracts, indicating serious conflicts that likely voided those deals. This kind of finding would equally apply if, say, a court official or county staff responsible for appointing minors’ counsel had a financial stake in the agency providing those attorneys, a grand jury would not let that go unnoticed.
Of incredible note here, according to Government Code § 23006 Text:
“Any contract, authorization, allowance, payment, or liability to pay, made or attempted to be made in violation of law, is void, and shall not be the foundation or basis of a claim against the treasury of any county.”
In essence, Civil Grand Juries can investigate court-related professionals to the extent that those professionals’ work involves public agencies or funds. They cannot adjudicate whether a therapist’s clinical opinion in a case was right, but they can ask if the system that selected and paid that therapist is functioning properly. They won’t tell a judge how to rule, but they will tell the Board of Supervisors and the public if a county contract for court services is being mismanaged. This oversight helps prevent abuses such as overbilling, lack of qualifications, or improper prolonging of litigation by those who are, ultimately, being paid with public money or entrusted with public duties. By investigating and reporting on these matters, grand juries help hold the system accountable and can spur improvements like better contract oversight, enhanced training requirements, or even removal of bad actors from public contracts.
How to Report Issues to a Civil Grand Jury (and What to Expect)
If you are aware of wrongdoing, inefficiency, or abuse involving county government or court-related services, reporting it to the Civil Grand Jury is a constructive way to spur an independent investigation. The process is designed to be accessible and to protect your confidentiality, so that whistleblowers and concerned citizens can come forward without fear. Here is a step-by-step guide to reporting an issue to your county’s grand jury, along with important information about confidentiality:
1. Identify the Correct Grand Jury: You should report your concern to the Civil Grand Jury in the county where the problem is occurring. Each county’s grand jury covers issues in that county only. For example, if the issue is with minors’ counsel appointments in Los Angeles County, you would contact the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury; if it’s about a therapist contract in a smaller county like Placer, then the Placer County Civil Grand Jury, and so on. Every grand jury operates separately, so make sure to reach out to the one with jurisdiction over the agency or program in question.
2. Obtain and Fill Out a Complaint Form: Most Civil Grand Juries have an official complaint form that members of the public can use to submit issues for investigation. These forms are often available on the Superior Court’s website for that county (since the grand jury is technically an arm of the Superior Court). If you cannot find a form, a written letter detailing your complaint is usually acceptable as well, but using the form is recommended because it prompts you to include all pertinent information. When filling out the complaint, be clear and factual. Provide enough detail to clearly define the issue, including names of agencies or individuals involved, dates or timeframe of incidents, and specific examples of the alleged wrongdoing or inefficiency. For example: “I wish to report that [John Doe], a court-appointed therapist on the County’s panel, lacks a valid license and has been billing the County for sessions that did not occur, on case XYZ.” Attach or include any evidence or documentation you have, such as copies of invoices, emails, or court orders. This can greatly strengthen your complaint. If the complaint form asks for your contact information, provide it (you can request anonymity if you prefer, see below) and sign the form if required.
3. Submit the Complaint: Follow the instructions for submission. Counties typically offer multiple channels. For example, Santa Clara County allows emailing the form to a specific address, mailing it to the grand jury’s office, or dropping it off at a secure drop box at the courthouse. Kern County has a Grand Jury Hotline where one can call and possibly make a verbal complaint or leave a message (and you may remain anonymous on the call). Check your county’s information: some grand juries now allow online submission directly through a web form. The key is to send it to the Civil Grand Jury, not a general court clerk or other agency. The addresses and emails are usually provided on the form or the grand jury’s informational webpage. Keep a copy of whatever you submit for your own records.
4. Confidentiality and Anonymity: Know that your complaint will be kept confidential. By law, “all complaints to the Grand Jury are kept confidential.” Grand jurors take an oath of secrecy; grand jury proceedings are entirely secret (Penal Code § 924 et seq. governs this secrecy). This means the information you submit is not made public, and the people or agency you’re complaining about won’t be told who complained (or even necessarily that a complaint was received, unless and until it leads to a public report). Grand jurors will not reveal your identity or the content of your complaint or documents outside of official deliberations.
If you are particularly worried about being identified, you have the option to file your complaint anonymously in many counties. An anonymous complaint should still provide as much detail as possible, even if you choose not to include your name. Keep in mind that if you remain anonymous, the grand jury won’t be able to contact you for follow-up questions, which sometimes they like to do for clarification. But anonymity is respected – you do not have to give your name if you fear retaliation, and even if you do give your name, it will be kept secret within the grand jury.
5. After Submission: Once the grand jury receives your complaint, a few things occur: The complaint is typically acknowledged (some counties send a confirmation letter or email). The grand jury will review it, often in a committee or as a whole panel, to decide if the issue falls under their jurisdiction and if it merits investigation. Every year, a grand jury might receive dozens or even hundreds of complaints, and they cannot investigate all of them in depth. They will prioritize issues based on significance, evidence provided, and resources. If your complaint involves something the grand jury is not allowed to investigate (for example, “My divorce case had a bad outcome, please investigate the judge”), they will likely decline because, as discussed, they cannot intervene in court cases or investigate judges’ rulings. You may get a polite notice that it’s not within their purview. If it is within their jurisdiction (e.g., “I suspect a county contractor for court minors counsel is overbilling the county”), then the grand jury may choose to investigate or at least do some preliminary inquiry. They might combine it with other similar complaints if multiple people have reported the issue.
If the grand jury needs more information, they might contact you (if you provided your contact details) to ask follow-up questions or request additional documents. They may also ask you to come in for a confidential interview with a few grand jurors. Any such interview is also secret and you can even request to have your identity protected in their notes. Note that as a complainant, you will not be informed of the day-to-day progress of any investigation. By law, the grand jury cannot share details with you once they take it on. You essentially hand the issue to them and trust the process.
6. Outcome of an Investigation: If the grand jury fully investigates, they will typically include the results in their Final Report (or sometimes an interim report). Grand jury reports are usually issued toward the end of their one-year term (often in June). Some grand juries issue reports on individual topics throughout the year. The report will describe the investigation’s findings (the facts they established) and recommendations for what should be done. The report will not mention your name or any personal identifiers nor will it show copies of any evidence given to them, it might not even mention a complaint was received, as it focuses on the outcome. Rest assured, confidentiality extends to the final product; the report speaks in terms of issues and agencies, not who brought them up.
7. Protection from Retaliation: Because of the strict confidentiality, retaliation is extremely unlikely. Officials generally won’t even know you complained, unless you tell others. Grand jurors are prohibited from revealing sources or the content of their deliberations. Even when they interview county employees or officials, those witnesses are admonished to keep the proceedings secret. The grand jury can, in their report, protect sources by not naming them and instead obtaining information through documents or aggregate testimony. In some cases, the existence of a grand jury investigation might become known (people notice grand jurors asking questions at a department), but the identity of complainants and witnesses is protected by law. Furthermore, it is a crime (misdemeanor) for grand jurors or certain others to disclose grand jury secrets (Cal. Penal Code § 924.1 imposes this), they take this very seriously, as the effectiveness of the grand jury depends on confidentiality.
Practical Tip: Keep your complaint focused and factual. Grand juries are more likely to act on a well documented, specific allegation of public concern (e.g., “Therapist X billed the county for 100 hours of counseling that records show never happened, attached are copies of attendance logs and invoices”) than on a broad, vague grievance (e.g., “The family court is corrupt”). If multiple people have the same concern, each can file a complaint, or they can sign one together; there is strength in numbers if the issue is widespread.
About the Author
This blog was written by a California-based advocate serving as a Civil Grand Juror. With a professional background in systems oversight and a personal commitment to public accountability, the author brings a unique perspective on the intersection of family court practices and government transparency. Due to the sensitive nature of her current role and past advocacy, she has chosen to remain anonymous.
Her experience on the Civil Grand Jury has deepened her understanding of how county contracts (especially those involving court-appointed professionals) can be reviewed for ethical compliance, fiscal responsibility, and alignment with public interest. She is passionate about helping the public understand underutilized avenues of oversight, including confidential complaint processes designed to empower whistleblowers and protect children and families.
