I sent her a letter including this:
It may interest you to know that the Sixth Appellate District is currently considering the issue you raised. The lower court has no jurisdiction over it. You are not a party to the case, but I will post the result on my blog, Angry-Dad.com. You are welcome to read about it there.I also asked her about her representation of Sally Mitchell, the CPS social worker who gave the false testimony in court. Ms. Sullivan could lose her law license if it turns out that she encouraged perjury.
My guess is that Ms. Sullivan will back off when she realizes that litigating this issue will only expose it for what it is -- an attempt by corrupt govt officials to cover up illegal behavior.
Ms. Sullivan's letter has three pages of legal huffing and puffing, but she only cites one actual case, In re Elijah S. (2005)125 Cal.App.4th 1532 (login reqd). Perhaps she thought that I would be too lazy or stupid to lookup the case. Here is what it actually decided:
In sum, we hold that under section 827, subdivision (a)(2), the juvenile court has jurisdiction and exclusive authority to order the disclosure of juvenile records pertaining to a deceased child who came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as set out in Section 300, regardless of whether or not a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 332 had been filed prior to or concurrently with the filing of the request for disclosure under section 827. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in granting the requests for disclosure made in this case, subject to its review of the relevant records in camera and their redaction of any information that might affect the rights and interests of third parties mentioned in the documents.In order words, the parents have the right to the records held by govt agencies, and the court will order it if necessary.
Ms. Sullivan tries to use this case to show that I cannot use the records of my kids. She has it exactly backwards. I have a right to access those records, and I have a right to do anything I want with them. Her silly letter only convinces me of the legal correctness of my position.
Another law Ms. Shannon cites is 42 USC 671(a)(8). It says that state agencies have to have some confidentiality safeguards if they are getting federal subsidies for foster care. It is not even remotely related to my case. My case did not involve foster care, federal money, or anything like that.