Interpreter Crisis Impedes Equal Access to Justice

by Julia Alanen

In Los Angeles County, an indigent non-English-speaker is unlikely to achieve a meaningful day in family court, particularly in the outlying branch courts. Parties are entitled to certified court-appointed interpreters only in criminal cases, juvenile court proceedings, and restraining order hearings. The courts' inability to meet family court litigants' needs is attributable to inadequate funding coupled with a shortage of certified interpreters.

Battered women and children are too often the casualties of the courts' inability to match supply with demand when it comes to providing interpreters for those who can't afford to pay for such services. Child abductions, molestations, visitation monitors for batterers, custody concerns, child support, spousal support, and other critical issues go unredressed every day because indigent litigants are unable to comprehend or meaningfully participate in their own court proceedings.

The 2000 Census confirmed that one-third of California's population speaks Spanish and of these, approximately 650,000 speak no English at all. Los Angeles, a major port of entry for Latinos, entices indigent monolingual Spanish-speaking litigants into the family courts with an impressive array of bilingual signs, services, correspondence and literature. But, just when litigants muster the courage to brave the courtroom, the door to justice slams shut - not because they don't speak English, but because they cannot afford to hire a certified interpreter.

In the interests of equity and judicial efficiency, some branch court bench officers find "good cause" (under Government Code section 68561[a]) to permit non-certified interpreters to assist in court. These people are generally friends or family of the litigant. Though well intentioned, inaccurate translation of even a single word can drastically alter testimony. For example, the word "embarrassed" is often mistaken with "embarazada" (meaning pregnant in Spanish), and "intoxicated" with "intoxicado" (food poisoned). The challenges of simultaneous interpretation, diverse dialects, social and cultural factors, litigants' varied vocabulary levels, context, and highly technical legal terminology render the court interpreter certification process grueling, the passage rate astonishingly low, and the cost of services exorbitant.

Obtaining fee waivers for interpreters initially proved to be a massive bureaucratic hurdle. Last year LAFLA received numerous reports from indigent non-English-speaking litigants that their applications for interpreter fee waivers were summarily rejected by bailiffs and court clerks, with the comment "we don't accept these." Pro se litigants returned to us with blank orders, reporting that the Commissioner was refusing to officially deny the interpreter fee waivers in writing. When a litigant finally obtained the Commissioner's written denial, LAFLA submitted a request for reconsideration, demanding a statement of decision. The branch court Commissioner, likely smelling a writ, reversed his own denial.

Despite initial unresponsiveness to the plight of indigent non-English-speaking family law litigants and their children, several branch courts, among them Long Beach and Torrance, currently approve fee waivers for interpreters whenever appropriate. The Honorable Aviva Bobb, Supervising Judge of the Family Law Departments, has issued memoranda urging the bench to broadly interpret Evidence Code section 755, which provides in part that the court must supply a certified interpreter when one of the parties to a family law action is seeking or has been granted a restraining order against the other party.

Greg Drapac, Manager of L.A. County's Interpreter Services, recently indicated that the Central based office intends to comply by sending certified interpreters to the branch courts whenever a non-English-speaking family law litigant holds a valid restraining order. Unfortunately, by the time many domestic violence victims find themselves engaged in the family court and become aware of their rights, the opportunity to obtain a restraining order has passed, rendering them ineligible for a free interpreter. Indigent litigants complain that the courts make a mockery of the approved fee waivers by refusing to actually produce an interpreter.

A one-year Family Law Interpreter Pilot Project in Los Angeles County (funded by Assembly Bill 1884) provided for the use of certified interpreters in child custody proceedings involving indigent parties. Judicial officers revealed in a Judicial Council evaluation survey following conclusion of the pilot program that the interpreters reduced both the amount of courtroom time needed for hearings and the number of continuances granted.

Current law provides interpreters for limited specific interest groups. Unimpeded access to justice requires that we champion the fundamental right of all litigants to a meaningful day in court.

LAFLA recently proposed a broad solution whereby bench officers designate specific days in each courthouse, and Interpreter Services assigns a certified interpreter to the branch court for that day. Interpreter Services and the branch court Commissioners we approached said they support implementation of the proposed pilot program. This remedy will optimize use of the limited number of available interpreters to protect indigent self-represented litigants, enable public interest attorneys to competently represent non-English-speaking clients, and increase court efficiency.

Julia Alanen is a staff atorney of LAFLA.

This commentary originally ran in the September 3, 2002 edition of the Daily Journal in a slightly different form.

back