America going down hill.
Going through a divorce has been difficult for Sepideh Saeedi. Not
understanding what's happening in court because she isn't proficient in
English has made the process even harder.
"When you don't understand what the judge is saying, what the other
side's attorney is saying, it's very stressful," Saeedi, 33, who speaks
Farsi, said after a recent court hearing in Redwood City, Calif.
Legal advocates say throughout the state, litigants in divorce, child
custody, eviction and other civil cases who have difficulty with
English are going into court without qualified interpreters. Instead,
many are forced to turn to friends or family members -- or worse yet,
the opposing party -- for translation.
That's because California only guarantees access to an interpreter in criminal cases, not civil cases.
But the state is looking to change that. Under pressure from the U.S.
Department of Justice, California's Judicial Council this year approved
a plan to extend free interpretation services to all cases by 2017.
"You can't have a court hearing without having your client understand
it correctly," said Protima Pandey, a staff attorney with Bay Area
Legal Aid.
Pandey said she always makes sure an interpreter is available for her
clients, but many litigants in family court don't have attorneys to do
that for them.
California court officials say extending interpreter services to all cases won't be easy.
California has the nation's largest court system spread out over a
vast geographic area with many rural counties. The state has about seven
million residents with limited English proficiency who speak over 200
languages.
The courts have also faced funding cuts in recent years that have
seen courthouses close and staff cut. There is no estimate yet on how
much it would cost to provide interpreters in all cases, but the plan
approved by the judicial council said the courts would need more than
the $92 million they were spending.
"California's judiciary is committed to language access and eager to
work out the best way to get that done," said California State Supreme
Court Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, who heads the group
in charge of implementing the state's language access goals.
Critics say the state has dragged its feet.
"Our input all along has been that they can do it sooner," said Mary
Lou Aranguren, legislative chair of the California Federation of
Interpreters, a union representing court interpreters. "There's a lot of
excuses the courts have used for years."
California was among 10 states that did not have a law, rule or
guiding document requiring courts to provide interpreters in all
criminal and civil cases, according to a 2014 survey by the National
Center for Access to Justice at Cardozo Law School. The other states in
the survey: Alaska, Illinois, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming and Vermont.
A 2013 letter from the civil rights division of the U.S. Department
of Justice said state law and court rules placed limits on providing
free, qualified interpreters in non-criminal cases, and courts were not
using all of the money in a fund used to pay for the services of
interpreters.
"It's understandable that people think the court hasn't moved as
quickly as it should have," said Ventura County Superior Court Judge
Manuel Covarrubias, vice-chair of the language access implementation
task force.
He said the courts have been working on the issue but have been sidetracked by financial difficulties.
The state last year passed a law authorizing courts to provide
interpreters for free in all civil cases. Where there isn't sufficient
funding, the law says courts should prioritize cases, starting with
domestic violence, harassment and elder abuse civil cases.
Outside the San Mateo County courtroom where Saeedi appeared, a sign
informed people that they had to bring their own interpreters. Saeedi
has an attorney who she said is able to explain the proceedings to her
afterward. She also relies on an online translator service available
through Google to check words and phrases that come up.
San Mateo County court officials say they provide interpreters in all
domestic violence family law cases, and in other family law cases, only
when they can. They have had trouble finding qualified interpreters,
and don't want to hire new interpreters too quickly for fear the state
funding used to pay for expanded services may dry up.
"That would be irresponsible to the employees we hire," said John Fitton, the court's executive officer.
Some courts have been extending the provision of interpreters. Los
Angeles County, which was part of the Justice Department's probe, has
been among the most aggressive in expanding access to interpreters,
legal advocates say.
In addition to domestic violence restraining orders, the court now
provides interpreters to anyone who needs them in other family cases, as
well as eviction, child guardianship, conservatorship, civil harassment
and small claims cases.
The rollout has faced challenges. The court has found it difficult to
find certified interpreters in some languages with origins in South
America, said Carolyn Kuhl, the court's presiding judge. And travel
times for interpreters needed in more than one courthouse on the same
day can be a challenge.
But so far, the court has been able to meet the needs, and judges are pleased, according to Kuhl.
"Not having to worry about the language skills of someone in the
family or whoever else might be there to interpret is a relief to these
judges," she said.