Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 23STCP00815, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services v. Civil Service Commission of the County of Los Angeles, 23STCP00815

Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied

Petitioners County of Los Angeles (“County”) and County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS” or “Department”) seek administrative mandamus directing Respondent Civil Service Commission of the County of Los Angeles (“Commission”) to set aside its decision not to sustain the discharge of Real Party-in-Interest Elya Kazaryan (“Kazaryan”) and finding that DCFS violated Kazaryan’s pre-deprivation (Skelly) due process rights.

The court has read and considered the moving papers,[1] opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioners County and DCFS commenced this proceeding on March 14, 2023. The Petition alleges a cause of action for administrative mandate and traditional mandate. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Kazaryan was employed by Petitioner DCFS as a Children’s Social Worker (“CSW”) III. On September 17, 2020, Kazaryan was discharged from her position.

DCFS’s reasons for discharge included Kazaryan’s failure to conduct required home visits and falsifying County records and time records. Kazaryan had falsified DCFS Form 158s, Child Welfare Services/Case Management (“CWS/CMS”) entries, mileage claims, and field itineraries. She falsified her overtime reported on her time sheets for July 26, 2018, November 23, 2018, and March 23, 2019. Kazaryan failed to conduct monthly home visits for a family for November 2018, April 2019 and May 2019, and failed to properly document such visits in CWS/CMS.

Kazaryan’s discharge was in accordance with the following DCFS and County Policies: DCFS Human Resources Manual (“HR Manual”) section 8.000; DCFS Procedural Guide 0400-503.10 (Contract Requirements and Exceptions); DCFS Management Directive #17-01, Code of Conduct; HR Manual section 14.120 (Non-Progressive Discipline); HR Manual section 14.140 (Unacceptable on-the-Job Behavior); HR Manual sections 14.520 (A-6), (A-7), (A-13), (B-4), (F-1), (F-2) and (F-10); and County Civil Service Rule (“CSR”) 18.031.

Pursuant to CSRs 4.02, 4.06 and 18.02, Kazaryan appealed her discharge to the Commission. On January 13, 2021, the Commission granted Kazaryan’s request for a hearing. The certified issues were: (1) whether the allegations in the Department’s September 17, 2020 letter were true; (2) if so, whether termination was the appropriate discipline; (3) whether the Department violated Kazaryan’s pre-deprivation due process rights; and (4) if so, the appropriate remedy.

The Hearing Officer conducted the appeal hearing on October 25 through 27, 2021, and February 22 and 23, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the Hearing Officer issued his Proposed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation (“Report”). The Report recommended that the Commission overturn the Department’s termination of Kazaryan’s employment and concluded that DCFS violated Kazaryan’s Skelly due process rights.

On January 11, 2023, the Commission issued its Notice of Final Commission Action and Final Order (“Final Order”) adopting the Hearing Officer’s Report and recommendation.

The County seeks a writ of mandate compelling the Commission to set aside its Final Order, sustain DCFS’ decision to discharge Kazaryan, and order that DCFS did not violate Kazaryan’s Skelly rights. The County seeks reasonable attorney’s fees, damages according to proof, and costs of suit.

On August 30, 2023, the Commission filed a Notice of No Beneficial Interest in Outcome.

CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.

CCP section 1094.5 does not on its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (“Fukuda”) (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143; see CCP §1094.5(c). Where the public employer brings the petition, the court utilizes the substantial evidence test in reviewing the agency’s decision. County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Commission, (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 520, 633.

“Substantial evidence” is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board, (“California You Authority”) (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585) or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. Mohilef v. Janovici, (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 305, n. 28. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Young v. Gannon, (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 225. The trial court considers all evidence in the administrative record, including evidence that detracts from evidence supporting the agency’s decision. California Youth Authority, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 585.

The agency’s decision must be based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862. The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. Implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. Id. at 115.

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Evid. Code §664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137. “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion. Afford v. Pierno, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.

The propriety of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is a matter in the discretion of the agency, and its decision may not be disturbed unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Lake v. Civil Service Commission, (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 224, 228. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the court must examine the extent of the harm to the public service, the circumstances surrounding the misconduct, and the likelihood that such conduct will recur. Skelly v. State Personnel Board, (“Skelly”) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217218. The penalty should be upheld if there is “any reasonable basis to sustain it”. County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Com. of County of Los Angeles, (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 871, 877. “Only in an exceptional case will an abuse of discretion be shown because reasonable minds cannot differ on the appropriate penalty.” Ibid. Neither an appellate court nor a trial court is free to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative agency concerning the degree of punishment imposed. Nightingale v. State Personnel Board, (1972) 7 Cal.3d 507, 515. The policy consideration underlying such allocation of authority is the expertise of the administrative agency in determining penalty questions. Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners, (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 961.

Welfare and Institutions (“W&I”) Code section 16516.5 requires CSWs to regularly visit all foster children placed in group homes or any licensed, certified or approved foster home. AR 501.

DCFS Policy 0400-503.10 (Contact Requirements and Exceptions) requires a CSW to conduct a face-to-face contact with all the children on the CSW’s caseload every month. AR 488, 492. The purpose of the monthly visits is to ensure child safety and well-being. AR 488.

A CSW is also required to document in CWS/CMS all contacts, including attempted contacts (i.e. face-to-face, telephone, letter, email, etc.) within three business days of the date of contact. AR 495. The CSW should document all observations, not opinions. AR 495. Documenting standards give CSWs a framework for documenting observations, activities, and actions taken to ensure child safety. AR 495. Specific instructions are provided to CSWs on how to document contact and edit or add information after saving a contact. AR 499-500.

DCFS employees are expected to understand and to adhere to County and Departmental personnel policies. AR 482 (Manual §8.000). Failure to comply with these policies, regulations and instructions could lead to disciplinary action, which could include discharge. Id.

Certain acts of employee misconduct are, by their nature, not appropriate for progressive discipline. AR 513 (Manual §14.20). These acts are those that the employee should have reasonably known to be unacceptable without specific notice from the Department, or that are generally socially unacceptable. Id. In these situations, discipline may be taken based on the degree of severity appropriate to the nature of the problem and status of the employee. Id. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty, theft, violent or disruptive behavior, insubordinate behavior, or behavior that is illegal or places the Department in violation of federal law. Id. Such behavior should be disciplined by suspension, or if warranted, discharge on the first occurrence. Id.

A DCFS employee is subject to disciplinary action for certain offenses. AR 535 (HR Manual §14.520). These offenses include the following: (1) submission of false time or financial records (AR 524); (2) falsification or submission of false time cards for self or other employees (AR 530); (3) falsifying, concealing, removing, mutilating, or destroying reports or documents (AR 537); (4) failure to follow established rules and regulations or adhere to security policies (AR 542); (5) violation of the recognized code of ethics of the professional group of the offender (AR 548); (6) consistently failing to meet requirements, carelessness or negligence of duties resulting in improper service being rendered to clients or dependents of the County in resulting in impairment of a County function (AR 548); and (7) failure to exercise sound judgment, which results in loss of or injury or damage to persons or property of the County (AR 549). HR Manual §14.520(A-6), (A-7), (A-13), (B-4), (F-1), (F-2), (F-10).

The list of disciplinary actions is a guide only and should not be automatically applied to all real infractions. AR 547 (HR Manual §14.520). All the circumstances surrounding a particular offense must necessarily be considered. Id. Some degree of flexibility is available in determining the severity of a disciplinary action. Id. This may result in an action more or less severe than those listed in these guidelines. Id. As with all matters relating to discipline, good judgment is imperative. Id.

Aside from failure to follow established rules and regulations or adhere to security policies, the discipline for a first offense based on any of these violations ranges from suspension to discharge. AR 524, 530, 537, 542, 548-49, 555. The appropriate discipline for falsification of timecards, and the submission of false timecards or financial records, is a 15 to 30-day suspension up to discharge for a first offense, a 30-day suspension up to discharge for a second offense, and discharge for a third offense. AR 524, 530.

All employees are required to take responsibility for their actions and avoid any behavior that has the appearance of impropriety. AR 507 (DCFS Management Directive #17-01(C)). They must practice professionalism and integrity, commit to excellence, and be honest, forthcoming and transparent. Id. They must act in accordance with County and Department policies and procedures. Id.

Employees may be subject to disciplinary action, including discharge from their County position and/or legal action when appropriate, for unacceptable behavior. AR 507 (DCFS Management Directive #17-01(D)). Such unacceptable behavior includes, inter alia, (1) the failure to notify the appropriate supervisory staff of the inability to report to work, including expected length of absence; and (4) misappropriating, misusing, or abusing any County property, including, but not limited to, monetary funds, equipment, computer systems, data, telephones and County vehicles. Id.

Failure of an employee to perform his or her assigned duties so as to meet fully explicitly stated or implied standards of performance may constitute adequate grounds for discharge, reduction or suspension. Where appropriate, such grounds may include, but are not limited to, qualitative as well as quantitative elements of performance, such as failure to exercise sound judgment, failure to report information accurately and completely, failure to deal effectively with the public, and failure to make productive use of human, financial and other assigned resources. Grounds for discharge, reduction or suspension may also include any behavior or pattern of behavior which negatively affects an employee’s productivity, or which is unbecoming a county employee; or any behavior or condition which impairs an employee’s qualifications for his or her position or for continued county employment. AR 566 (CSR 18.031).

Countywide Discipline Guidelines for employees define a separate range of discipline for the first, second, or third or any type of offense. AR 571. There is some degree of flexibility in determining the appropriate level of discipline. AR 571. This may result in an administrative action more or less severe than those listed. AR 571. Only a weighing of all relevant factors, exercising good judgment, and consultation with a Human Resources Office will lead to an appropriate decision. AR 571.

On April 16, 2001, Kazaryan began working for DCFS and was promoted on September 7, 2007 to CSW III in DCFS’s Santa Clarita Office. AR 471-72. As part of her duties, Kazaryan developed case plans to assess and maintain the safety of the children in her caseload as well as monitor compliance with court orders regarding the children’s care. AR 1323-24. Because reunification is DCFS’ main goal for children placed in foster care, Kazaryan was also expected to work toward family reunification. AR 979-80.

Kazaryan was supervised by Michael Wikler (“Wikler”) from 2010 through 2018 and by Danielle Locke (“Locke”) from February 2019 to February 2020. AR 943-44, 1241, 1250. She had no prior record of discipline, including oral warnings, written reprimands, demotions, disciplinary transfers, or suspensions. AR 12.

Kazaryan received positive overall evaluations. AR 12, 274-03. Every Performance Evaluation from March 2016 to February 2019 rated her as Very Good or Competent. AR 1917-46. Some evaluations noted that she needed to continue providing status review reports for any given case within 30 days of the scheduled court hearing date. AR 1936, 1945.

Kazaryan went on leave on July 30, 2019, and her caseload was dispersed to other CSWs. AR 839, 1085. Kazaryan returned from leave on November 22, 2019. AR 1085.

During Kazaryan's leave, Supervising Children’s Social Worker (“SCSW”) Locke received a phone call from Regina D. (“Regina”), the caregiver for three siblings on CSW Kazaryan’s caseload. AR 846-47. Regina complained that, although Kazaryan knew that she (Regina) was moving out, Kazaryan did not complete the paperwork for the funding of Regina’s home out-of-state under the Interstate Compact for the Protection of Children. AR 847. Regina also asserted that Kazaryan failed to conduct some monthly visits, tried to schedule visits at the end of the month, and then would cancel or just not show. AR 847.

Locke notified Assistant Regional Administrator Tina Mosley (“Mosley”) about Regina’s accusations. AR 847. Mosley in turn reported them to Performance Management. AR 847. Performance Management asked Mosley to obtain an affidavit from Regina. AR 906.

On August 1, 2019, Regina sent Locke an affidavit asserting that Kazaryan did not conduct home visits in July and November 2018 and April and May 2019. AR 623. For July 2018, Kazaryan asked to visit on July 26 despite receiving notice on July 2 that Regina and the three children were on vacation. AR 623.

Mosley contacted Regional Administrator Laura Shetzbarger about the allegations. AR 910, 1177. On November 22, 2019, DCFS issued Kazaryan a memorandum placing her on desk duty pending the investigation. AR 1969-70. She refused to sign it. AR 1970.

Locke and Mosley met with Kazaryan about her alteration of pre-approved Form 158s. AR 910, 926-27. When Kazaryan had a pre-approved overtime request to see a client, she would change the 158 as needed. AR 911.

On January 15, 2020, Kazaryan submitted an affidavit explaining her position on specific home visits and DCFS documentation. AR 1913-14. She admitted that she could not remember if she stopped by when one of the Home Services Aides (“HSAs”) visited the youngest of the children on April 9, 23, and 30, 2019. AR 1914. She did have contact with the older child that month, but it does not appear on the system. AR 1914.

On February 26, 2020, Internal Affairs (“IA”) Investigator Trina Rodgers (“Rodgers”) prepared and submitted an Employee Misconduct Report (“Rodgers Report”). AR 2002. The Rodgers Report explained that Rodgers investigated two issues. AR 2002. The first issue was whether Kazaryan engaged in falsification or forgery of County records like field itineraries, CWS/CMS, the Mileage Authorization and Reimbursement System (“MARS”), and Form 158s. AR 2002. The second issue was whether Kazaryan failed to conduct monthly home visits for the children in Regina’s care, or to document said visits in CWS/CMS. AR 2003.

Rodgers interviewed Regina, Locke, Mosley, Kazaryan, and Wikler. AR 2003-06. She also reviewed CWS/CMS logs, mileage claims, field itineraries, and Form 158s for July and November 2018 and March, April, and May 2019. AR 2006-08. The Rodgers Report referenced 22 attachments, including text messages, emails, and Kazaryan’s CWS/CMS logs, Form 158s, mileage claims, and field itineraries. AR 2009.

The Rodgers Report noted that Regina incorrectly considered a visit to be a home visit if Kazaryan entered her home and spoke directly with her about the well-being of the children. AR 2004. IA concluded that, based on Kazaryan’s documentation, the only months in question for home visits were July and November 2018 and April and May 2019. AR 2004.

The Rodgers Report concluded that Kazaryan falsified County records, including time records, and failed to provide services or job duties. AR 2008. Kazaryan falsified Form 158s, CWS/CMS, MARS claims, and field itineraries, as well as overtime reports for July 26, 2018, November 23, 2018, and March 23, 2019. AR 2008. Rodgers also concluded that Kazaryan either did not conduct monthly home visits or failed to properly document said visits in CWS/CMS for November 2018 and April and May 2019. AR 2008.

On July 2, 2018, Regina informed Kazaryan via email of a vacation she planned to take with the children from July 19 to 24, 2008. AR 307, 626. Regina would then visit her parents until July 29. AR 307. Kazaryan’s handwritten notes (AR 1355-56) stated that this meant the children would not be with Regina during her visit to her parents and instead would be with their grandparents from Vegas. AR 307. She also wrote “mother’s visits will be arranged by grandparents.” AR 307.

On November 22, 2018, Regina texted Kazaryan to cancel the next day’s visit and asked to reschedule for some time the next week. AR 2050. Kazaryan’s handwritten notes on a printout of this message states that she rescheduled for November 30, 2018, but failed to update the field itinerary and mileage form to reflect that fact. AR 2050.

On March 22, 2019, at 11:25 p.m., Kazaryan texted the children’s father, Jeffrey DeMico (“Jeffrey”), to arrange a visit the next day at 6:00 p.m. at a location somewhere around Grenada Hills if they want to get something to eat. AR 1882. Jeffrey chose one restaurant that afternoon, then another the next day after Kazaryan said the first restaurant was too loud for a monitored visit. AR 1882-83.

On March 23, 2019, sometime after 5:00 p.m., Kazaryan texted one of the children’s caregivers, Dave D. (“Dave”). AR 1887. Kazaryan said she was outside the home and asked Dave to bring the kids out for their visit with Jeffrey. AR 1887. Dave responded that he had to leave and took the kids with him. AR 1887. He thought the visit was at 4:00 p.m. AR 1887.

On April 22, 2019, Kazaryan texted Locke to cancel a Children and Family Team (“CFT”) meeting scheduled that day and proposed meeting April 24, 2019, at 6 p.m., in Granada Hills. AR 2028-30. She subsequently proposed Thursday. AR 2030.

On May 3, 2019, Kazaryan texted Jeffrey and asked if he could meet the next day at 5:00 p.m. for a court-ordered monitored visit at a restaurant called the “Habit”. AR 2054-55.

On May 4, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., Kazaryan texted Dave stating that she was “here” and asking him to bring the girls out. AR 2056. Kazaryan’s handwritten notes state that this was so she could take them to visit their father. AR 1902. The Delivered Service Log has a contract entry for that date for the three children with no narrative. AR 1905.

On May 22, 2019, Locke emailed Kazaryan about a missing report for court. AR 312. Kazaryan responded that she was on vacation and there was nothing she could do about it if it was late. AR 312. Locke had been on vacation the week before, and she was on vacation now. AR 312. She was receiving calls and emails and was pressured for the reports when she needed to not be stressed. AR 312.

On May 31, 2019, Mosley forwarded to Kazaryan an email from Human Resources. AR 617. This email confirmed that employees should not alter an approval for a specific request, including via cross-outs, once the Form 158 is approved. AR 618. If management agrees to a change, the CSW should complete a new Form 158. AR 618.

On June 4, 2019, Kazaryan replied she had been editing Form 158s for 15 years without issue while keeping her supervisor informed. AR 317. Eight minutes later, she added that she felt harassed and would no longer work overtime. AR 317. Locke emailed to ask if it was possible to see parents during Kazaryan’s work hours. AR 316. Kazaryan responded that some parents cannot take off work and complain. AR 316.

A Form 158 submitted by Kazaryan on July 17, 2018 requests two hours of overtime for a monthly home visit on July 26. AR 1984. The overtime was necessary because the children’s biological mother, Kristen D. (“Kristen”), was unavailable during regular work hours. See AR 1984.

A Delivered Service Log for July 3, 2018 reported that Kazaryan met with the children and Kristen at a frozen yogurt store. AR 1832.

A later entry showed that on July 26, 2018, Kazaryan texted Kristen at both numbers on file for her. AR 1832. She asked Kristen to call because she had been unable to reach her. AR 1832.

The Delivered Service Log then shows that, on July 26, 2018, at 9:29 a.m., Kazaryan texted Regina and asked her to call because Kazaryan tried to talk to her the day before and the call went to voicemail. AR 1836. At 10:48 a.m., Regina replied that she did not have great service where she was but would call shortly. AR 1839. Kazaryan also asked Regina if the kids were having visits with their mother Kristen. AR 1839. Regina said the children are having visits with Kristen, and they typically see her on Tuesdays and Thursdays. AR 1840. Kazaryan replied that Kristen was not answering her calls or texts and she wanted to see the children’s visits with their mother. AR 1840.

A CWS/CMS entry and a Delivered Service Log show that Kazaryan visited the children and Regina on November 23, 2018. AR 1862, 1867.

Kazaryan’s mileage claim for November 30, 2018 shows that she left DCFS’ office in Santa Clarita at 6:00 p.m., arrived in Van Nuys for a home visit with a different client at 6:30 p.m., and returned home at 11020 Eldorado Place in Los Angeles at 8:00 p.m. AR 1843. The form does not show a trip to Grenada Hills that day. AR 1843. Her field itinerary for November 30 only shows a visit to “Jessica T.” at the Van Nuys address from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. AR 1859.

A Form 158, submitted by Kazaryan on November 20, 2018, requested two hours of overtime for November 23, 2018. AR 1870. It stated that the hours were necessary for a home visit where the family was not available during regular work hours. AR 1870.

Kazaryan’s timecards show two hours of overtime for July 26 and November 23, 2018. AR 1987, 1991.

A Delivered Service Log for March 9, 2019 shows a visit between the children and Jeffrey, on March 9, but no entry for March 23. AR 1875. A Form 158, submitted on March 5, 2019, requested four hours of overtime for a visit on March 23, 2019. AR 1878. It explained Kazaryan would monitor a court-ordered visit for Kristen as a drug treatment center that only allows visits on weekends. AR 1878.

A Delivered Service Log for April 2019 shows visits by HSAs on April 9, 23, and 30, but none from Kazaryan. AR 1890-95.[2]

A Form 158, submitted on May 1, 2019, requests four hours of overtime on May 4. AR 1898. The form asserted that Kazaryan would conduct a monitored visit after regular work hours on a weekend because the caregiver and minors were not available to meet during the day. AR 1898.

On June 17, 2020, DCFS issued to Kazaryan a Notice of Intent to Discharge (“NOI”), signed by Human Resources Administrator Lynn Bowles Condon (“Condon”), informing her of DCFS’s plan to terminate her based on the Rodgers Report. AR 462-74. The NOI proposed Kazaryan’s discharge based on her failure to conduct the required monthly home visits, her falsification of County records and time records, and her failure to document interactions with clients and/or collateral contacts. AR 472-73.

The NOI cited violations of DCFS HR Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.000; DCFS Procedural Guide 0400-503.10 (Contract Requirements and Exceptions); DCFS Management Directive #17-01, Code of Conduct; HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.120 (Non-Progressive Discipline); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.140 (Unacceptable on-the-Job Behavior); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (A-6); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (A-7); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (A-13); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (B-4), HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (F-1); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (F-2); HR Manual, Chapter 14, Section 14.520 (F-10); and CSR 18.031. AR 462-67.

The NOI included all the attachments to the Rodgers Report, but the Rodgers Report itself was not among the NOI attachments. AR 475-477, 2009.

On July 16, 2020, Kristen submitted an affidavit stating that she has been trying to reunify with her children since they were removed from her care in September 2018. AR 270. Regina was doing everything possible to prevent that reunification, but Kazaryan had been diligent in facilitating the reunification process. AR 270. Kristen suspected that was why Regina had made it clear from the beginning that she did not like Kazaryan. AR 270-71.

Kristen visited her children on July 3, 2018 at a frozen yogurt place, and Kazaryan oversaw the meeting. AR 271. Kristen planned to visit her daughters again on July 26, but Regina did not cooperate in making the girls available. AR 271.

After a Skelly hearing on August 25, 2020, DCFS issued an amended Notice of Discharge (“NOD”) on September 17, 2020, signed by Human Resources Administrator Condon. AR 448-60. The NOD stated that Kazaryan’s termination was based on her failure to conduct the required home visits for Regina and her falsification of County records and time records. AR 449. Kazaryan had falsified Form 158s, CWS/CMS, mileage claims and field itineraries. AR 453. She also falsified her overtime hours on her timesheets for July 26 and November 23, 2018, and for March 23, 2019. AR 453. IA also had concluded she failed to conduct monthly home visits for November 2018 and April and May 2019. AR 453.

The NOD acknowledged Kazaryan’s lack of prior discipline and her performance ratings of Competent to Very Good from March 2016 to February 2019. AR 458.

On January 13, 2021, the Commission granted Kazaryan request for an appeal hearing. AR 18. The issues certified for hearing included (a) whether the allegations in the NOD were true and (b) if so, whether termination was the appropriate discipline. AR 24. The Commission later certified two additional questions: (c) whether DCFS violated Kazaryan’s pre-deprivation due process rights and (d) if so, the appropriate remedy. AR 41.

On October 21, 2021, before the appeal hearing, Wikler submitted an affidavit asserting that Kazaryan showed tenacity and commitment to her job when he supervised her in the years through 2018. AR 272-73. She demonstrated respect, dignity, and compassion to the families she worked with. AR 272. She did struggle at times to enter her contacts timely, but otherwise managed her caseload well and saw the children on her caseload per DCFS standards. AR 272.

Wikler never was concerned that Kazaryan had falsified any documents, including Form 158s, or lied about the overtime she worked. AR 272-73. The office practice was that employees could modify their Form 158s if they worked more or less than listed. AR 272. Kazaryan would always show Wikler whenever she needed to make changes, and she would then change her time sheet if needed. AR 273. Wikler could not recall a time he thought any discrepancy in the documented hours was more than an oversight. AR 273.

The hearing took place on October 25, 2021 and continued through October 2021 and February 2022. AR 86. Pertinent testimony is as follows.

Rodgers has been employed by DCFS since 2014 and as an IA investigator since September 2016. AR 673.

In 2019, Rodgers was assigned to investigate the claims of misconduct against Kazaryan. AR 674. The allegations included the falsification of time records and DCFS records like field itineraries, mileage, and contact entries in the CWS/CMS. AR 674. The alleged falsification of records occurred from July 2018 through May 2019. AR 676.

Rodgers received Regina’s affidavit. AR 683. She then interviewed Regina about allegations that Kazaryan would not show up for meetings, sometimes cancelled at the last minute, and did not come at all for some months. AR 685.

To verify the allegations, Rodgers used the information Regina provided, the CWS/CMS contacts that Kazaryan entered into the system, Kazaryan’s mileage reports, and her requests for overtime via Form 158s. AR 685-86. CSWs use field itineraries to show the supervisor where they plan to be during the day. AR 686. A mileage claim is the way CSWs claim reimbursement for miles to drive to families’ homes. AR 686. The field itineraries, mileage claims, contacts, and time sheets should all match. AR 686.

Rodgers determined that Kazaryan’s mileage reimbursement for May 1, 2019 was rejected. AR 691. When she asked Locke why, Locke explained she was unable to match the mileage claim with that day’s overtime request, which Kazaryan had changed after it had been signed. AR 691.

Rodgers concluded that Kazaryan had not made a home visit in July 2018. AR 695. This was based on her interviews with Regina and Kazaryan, the contact notes, and inconsistencies in how Kazaryan conducted her visits. AR 695.

Rodgers reviewed the date of July 26, 2018 because Kazaryan made a claim for two hours of overtime on that date to visit the family. AR 702. An email from Regina stated that the family would not be in town on that date. AR 702-03. The family was not, in fact, in town. AR 731. Kazaryan stated during her interview that no visit occurred that day, but she drove to Regina’s home for an attempted visit. AR 708. The attempted visit should have been documented by Kazaryan in her CWS/CMS log, and it was not. AR 708.

Her mileage claim and Form 158 show she went to the house on July 26, 2018. Kazaryan claimed that she went there, and Rodgers did not know if that was true. AR 730-31. Because Kazaryan knew from Regina’s email the family was not there for a visit, she could seek reimbursement for the miles driven, but she could not seek overtime because there was “no work.” AR 732.

Rodgers discovered that Kazaryan entered a contact for November 23, 2018 when none existed. AR 708-09. The family was out of town that day and the visit did not occur. AR 709. Kazaryan admitted this fact in her interview but said she rescheduled the visit for November 30. AR 709. That visit never happened either. AR 709. CSWs are supposed to enter a Delivered Service Log within three days of a visit, but Kazaryan did not enter one before December 3, 2018. AR 710. She entered one only for the November 23 contact that did not occur. AR 710.

Rodgers found that no contact likely occurred, and none was documented, for the family in April 2019. AR 713. A CFT meeting was scheduled but then cancelled. AR 713. Rodgers did not know whether a CFT meeting would qualify as a monthly visit. AR 713. There were no contacts entered for April 2019. AR 713.

Regina’s understanding of a home visit was incorrect. AR 723. A home visit does not require that Kazaryan enter the home and speak directly with Regina about the children. AR 723. Kazaryan could have also spoken to the children at Regina’s home to confirm their well-being. AR 724. Visiting the kids with the birth mother does not qualify as a home visit; it is considered visitation. AR 724.

Rodgers never spoke with the birth parents because the original allegation was not that Kazaryan was not doing her job; it was that she changed and possibly falsified documents. AR 757.

Locke began working for DCFS in 2002. AR 806. Locke was assigned to the Santa Clarita office in January 2019 and began directly supervising Kazaryan in February 2019. AR 806, 943. Locke did not have any contact with Regina in 2018. AR 967.

As a mobile CSW, Kazaryan was required to complete a field itinerary. AR 814. The CSW fills out the field itinerary on the computer, prints it, and gives it to Locke to sign a few days before the day on the itinerary. AR 814-15. One copy stays on her desk while the CSW keeps the other while in the field. AR 815.

CSWs will enter their field itinerary onto MARS, print out a hard copy, and submit it with a mileage claim. AR 816. Locke is responsible for matching employees’ hard copy field itineraries with submitted mileage reimbursement claims. AR 816. Locke did not approve Kazaryan’s February 2019 mileage reimbursement request because the field itinerary and the mileage claim printout from MARS did not match the copies she had. AR 821-22, 825.

Locke was also responsible for signing off on Form 158s, which were submitted for time off, vacation or overtime. AR 829. Because Kazaryan was a mobile CSW who did not come into the office regularly, Kazaryan would submit her filed itineraries with her Form 158 overtime requests and give them to Locke together. AR 832.

The overtime requests in Form 158s are specific to tasks requested and are approved for a specific family or for their specific need. AR 832. Any change in the purpose set forth in an overtime request would require submission of a new overtime request. AR 833. A variance between planned and actual overtime was normal within 30 minutes and could be four hours in an emergency. AR 834. Any greater variance would need supervisor approval. AR 834.

During a May 2019 meeting with her supervisor, Locke discovered that Kazaryan was changing information on her Form 158s after they had been approved. AR 835. When CSWs submit a Form 158 and obtain advance approval, the actual time they visit the site may differ from the time they wrote. AR 835-36. They need to fill out a completely different Form 158 to reflect the correct time. AR 836. Mosley explained at the meeting that CSWs are not entitled to change approved Form 158s without a manager’s approval. AR 836. CSWs must submit new Form 158s if there are changes. AR 836.

Many people changed information on the Form 158s themselves, although protocol required them to submit a new Form 158 with new information. AR 953-54. Once Mosley told Kazaryan not to change her Form 158s, she did not do so anymore. AR 953-54. Kazaryan told Locke that she did not know the practice was unacceptable in the 15 years she had been revising her Form 158s. AR 969. Locke emailed her whole unit to clarify that any changes to a Form 158 needed supervisor approval. AR 954.

Kazaryan went on approved FMLA leave, and her cases were redistributed to other DCFS employees. AR 841. Regina contacted Locke while Kazaryan was on leave to report that Kazaryan failed to complete necessary paperwork for funding her home to be approved out of state. AR 846-47. Regina also asserted that Kazaryan failed to make monthly home visits. AR 847. She would schedule them for the end of the month, only to either call to cancel or just fail to appear without calling first. AR 847.

Locke informed Mosley of Regina’s complaint, and Mosley instructed Locke to obtain an affidavit from Regina. AR 848. Regina provided the affidavit to Locke, which Locke submitted to Mosley. AR 848. Locke believed that Risk Management contacted her regarding Kazaryan’s performance. AR 849.

During her interview, Locke provided copies of Kazaryan’s field itineraries and mileage printout and copies of her Form 158 overtime requests. AR 849. Locke compares the CWS/CMS with overtime requests and field itineraries to verify completion of such tasks. AR 866-67. One overtime entry was for March 23, 2019 to visit Kristen at a drug treatment center from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. AR 859. When Locke approved that overtime, she expected Kazaryan to pick the children up and take them to the mother’s treatment center, monitor the children’s visit with the mother, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. AR 859-60.

Kazaryan should have documented the visit in CWS/CMS within the next three days to ensure documentation that the children were seen and safe. AR 860. The lack of service logs for March 23, 2019 would raise a concern that Kazaryan did not complete the task she was paid to do. AR 866. Locke approved overtime for March 23, 2019, but there is no contact in CWS/CMS to show the work was completed on that date. AR 888-89.

Counsel showed Locke the March 23, 2019 text messages between Kazaryan and Dave, one of the children’s caregivers. AR 867, 1887. Locke testified that Kazaryan did not show her these messages. AR 867.

A May 4, 2019 entry has no information about the supposed contact. AR 875. This creates a “ghost contact” in which a CSW creates a contact but fails to enter sufficient information about it. AR 876. The entry only said that there was a supervised visit of the father and the children, but what happened was not entered. AR 878. Locke could not tell from that information if a visit even occurred. AR 878-79.

Service logs show that HSAs and other staff conducted visits on April 2, 17, and 23, 2019. AR 880-82. They do not show a visit from a CSW during that month. AR 886-87.

At one point, Locke talked to Mosley about her concerns that Kazaryan’s overtime did not match her mileage. AR 995. She also noted that Kazaryan was working a lot of overtime. AR 996.

Kazaryan was reassigned to a different supervisor in February 2020 after her previous reassignment requests were denied. AR 944. Locke did not know why Kazaryan’s requests were denied, but it might have been because she was under investigation. AR 944. Locke never discussed her concerns about Kazaryan with Wikler, who had been Kazaryan’s supervisor in 2018. AR 1241.

The Rodgers Report said that Regina told Locke that she (Regina) was upset with Kazaryan because she advocated too much for the parents. AR 979. Regina never told Locke that, and Locke never told Rodgers that. AR 979.

Mosley was Locke’s supervisor at the DCFS Santa Clarita office. AR 1029. Her supervisorial duties include approval of court reports, overtime requests, and mileage requests. AR 896. She also takes complaints from clients and manages Performance Management issues. AR 896.

DCFS policy is that, within 72 hours of a child visit, the CWS should document in CMS/CWS who and what they saw, whether they saw any marks or bruises, whether the house was in shambles, and other details. AR 1201-02. A ghost contact occurs when a CSW creates a contact in CMS/CWS on a certain date but fails to input any narrative about the visit like the time of arrival, what the CSW did during the contact, and whether there were any marks or bruises on the children. AR 937. Ghost contacts were occurring more often than desired, and supervisors were asked to randomly go through cases and look for them. AR 938.

A field itinerary is used by CSWs to document where they are going. AR 1202. CSWs fill out the date, time, and case they are going to see and an approximate time of arrival, and the field itinerary is signed off by the immediate supervisor. AR 1203. Field itineraries also show whether a CSW is working on their first priority, which is going out to make sure the children in their caseload are safe. AR 900, 1041. The visit times listed on field itineraries may be estimates, especially when a CSW has more than one planned on the same day. AR 898-99. The supervisors use the field itinerary for their mileage accounting and to know where the CSWs are. AR 1203.

The person overseeing the CSW’s mileage request might not approve it if the claim might be inaccurate. AR 897. The mileage request should match the field itineraries, which supervisors use to check if CSWs are seeing clients. AR 897-98.

CSWs use Form 158s to request overtime. AR 1203-04. The CSW should submit a Form 158 as early as possible for approval, usually two or three days in advance. AR 1041-42. No DCFS policy explicitly says that, but there is an “emergency overtime” exception. AR 1042. If a CSW plans to change their approved overtime work, he or she should notify their supervisor that the change will happen and the Form 158 can be modified, or else the CSW should not perform that work. AR 913-914, 939, 1042-43.

Emergency situations do arise, such as when an approved overtime request needs to be extended by several hours to detain a child. AR 1047-48. The HR Manual says that the CSW should use his or her phone to send an email to the supervisor about the change to document it. AR 1048-49. The supervisor would have to go back and look at the Form 158 and modify it. AR 1048.

When overtime changes for non-emergency reasons – such as when the client asks to meet at a new time -- the CSW should communicate that fact to the supervisor. AR 1050. Mosley admitted that everybody’s practice is different in this regard. AR 1050. She would want a new Form 158 to reflect the time actually worked so that audit controllers can see it. AR 1051.

Mosley contacted Performance Management through the County’s fraud hotline regarding Regina’s complaints about Kazaryan. AR 905. Performance Management instructed Mosley to obtain an affidavit from Regina, which Locke obtained. AR 906-07.

Mosley’s involvement in the IA investigation of Kazaryan was limited to being a witness. AR 909. She did not investigate the allegations herself or talk to any of Kazaryan’s other clients. AR 1183.

Mosely defined a visit as any face-to-face contact with a child on the CSW’s caseload. AR 1184. This includes a visit when children are with their biological parents. AR 1184. When the children are at the home of a parent, the CSW must visit this home either once or twice a month. AR 1184. Because Mosely did not investigate this case, she did not ask the birth parents if Kazaryan missed a home visit with either of them. AR 1184.

HSAs assist CSWs in monitoring visits for children and their parents. AR 1198. Because they are not social workers, a visit from an HSA does not count as a face-to-face contact. AR 1198.

Mosley had a meeting with Kazaryan regarding her form F58s. AR 910. The Form 158 has to be approved by the chain of command, which is the supervisor, Mosley, and Regional Administrator Michael Rauso (“Rauso”), and it is a very cumbersome process. AR 912-13. Kazaryan would have a Form 158 approved by a supervisor like Locke. She would then cross out and change information without approval as she felt necessary. AR 911-12. Mosley informed Kazaryan that she should not unilaterally change her Form 158s after they were approved. AR 921, 927. Because Kazaryan gave her reasons for modifying the Form 158s, Mosely agreed to check with Human Resources to verify the accuracy of her direction to Kazaryan. AR 1053. Human Resources informed him the same day as his email, May 30, 2019, that the policy is that the Form 158 must be pre-approved and cannot be changed except in an emergency situation. AR 927-28.

The Hearing Officer asked if Mosley knew of any other CSW terminated for misusing or falsifying overtime requests. AR 925. Mosley did not. AR 925. She did not refer Kazaryan to the fraud hotline and does not know why she was fired. AR 925. She just told Kazaryan to stop revising Form 158s without supervisor approval. AR 926-27.

During Mosley’s testimony, the Hearing Officer asked DCFS’ counsel whether the decisionmaker who issued the NOD reviewed the Rodgers Report. AR 1086. DCFS said no because the Rodgers Report was not in the Skelly packet. AR 1086. The Hearing Officer thought this was odd. A DCFS investigator conducted a thorough investigation and prepared a detailed report and yet the decision-maker did not use the report in deciding the discipline. AR 1086-87.

DCFS’ counsel admitted that the decisionmaker usually gets the investigative report. AR 1088. In his experience, the decisionmaker makes the decision based on the Letter of Discharge and the enclosures that the decision-maker receives. AR 1088. Someone in Performance Management usually writes that letter for the decisionmaker to sign. AR 1088.

The Hearing Officer stated that this creates a “metaphysical twist.” AR 1088. The would-be decision-maker is kept in the dark until he receives a letter with orders to sign it. AR 1088. DCFS’ argument implies that merely signing a letter somehow turns him into a decisionmaker. AR 1088. The Rodgers Report was highly relevant for Kazaryan to know why management decided to terminate her. AR 1089. Yet, she did not receive it until the middle of the appeal hearing. AR 1089.

Kazaryan’s counsel pointed out the Rodgers Report has exculpatory information from Wilker that the decisionmaker did not see when he signed the NOD. AR 1089. This meant that Kazaryan could not raise the Wilker information in the Skelly proceeding. AR 1089.

Rauso is employed by DCFS as a regional administrator. AR 1271. Rauso has been employed by DCFS for 18 years. AR 1271.

Rauso made the decision “to move toward termination” of Kazaryan. AR 1273. Rauso based his decision to discharge on Kazaryan’s missed contacts, misrepresentations of those contacts, and falsified overtime via submitted Form 158s. AR 1275. He could not remember if he reviewed the Skelly packet. AR 1275.

When Rauso reviews CWS/CMS entries, he looks for what the CSW did and how they did it. AR 1282. The details allow supervisors to confirm the CSWs covered what they were supposed to cover. AR 1282-83.

If Rauso finds that an employee conducted a child visit but did not document it, it causes problems. AR 1283-84. If something happens to that employee, DCFS cannot follow up on what that employee did. AR 1284. The child could be in danger, and DCFS would have no documentation of it. AR 1284.

Mosely alerted Rauso that Kazaryan did not make her monthly visits. AR 1286. She provided contacts with the family members that the visits were not made. AR 1286. A CSW who does not make the monthly visits cannot ensure the safety of the child, as is the CSW’s duty. AR 1286.

Rauso believed that Kazaryan missed contacts for more than one family. AR 1313. Even if it was for only one family, it was a very serious issue. AR 1313.

Kazaryan began as a CSW I and was promoted to CSW III in 2007. AR 1323. Kazaryan’s main priority was to assess and maintain the safety of the children in her caseload. AR 1323. Her job duties included assessing, identifying, documenting children’s safety, providing services to the family, providing parents with reunification services, and arranging visitation between parents and caregivers with children. AR 1324. She would talk to a foster family, the birth family, and the foster children because reunification is the main goal. AR 1324, 1327.

Kazaryan had not received any discipline prior to Locke becoming her supervisor. AR 1331. Locke frequently failed to timely process her mileage reimbursements and Form 158s. AR 1331. Kazaryan once asked Locke why she had not processed a mileage request after four months. AR 1331. Locke’s response was just “we’re still looking at it.” AR 1331.

Kazaryan’s visits changed at the last minute after she submitted a Form 158 for pre-approval of overtime. AR 1337. Kazaryan changed her Form 158s as needed to match. AR 1337. She had done this for 15 years, and all the other CSWs in the office did the same thing. AR 1337. Kazaryan stopped changing her Form 158s after Mosley told her in May 2019 that it was unacceptable. AR 1338.

Regina never complained to Kazaryan that she missed visits with her or the kids. AR 1342. When Kazaryan was assigned Regina’s case, others described the case as challenging because of Regina. AR 1343. Regina was writing letters to the Board of Supervisors and lodging complaints, so Kazaryan was asked to take the case. AR 1343.

When Kazaryan first contacted her, Regina insisted that the parents were bad and that she needed to adopt the children. AR 1343. Kazaryan informed Regina that reunification was the goal and that she had to make reasonable efforts towards that goal. AR 1343. Regina did not like that and felt that Kazaryan was siding with the mother and trying to unify the children with their parents. AR 1343.

Kazaryan found Regina very difficult. AR 1343. Regina would attempt to make the kids unavailable for Kazaryan’s visits, coach and bribe them to make statements against the parents, and generally try to persuade Kazaryan of the parents’ unfitness. AR 1344.

On July 3, 2018, Kazaryan visited the children. AR 1354. Regina has asserted Kazaryan did not conduct a visit in July 2018. AR 1364. This likely was because Regina assumed the visit had to be at the house. AR 1364. A home visit can be outside the home at a school or during the mother’s visit. AR 1364. Kazaryan visited the children on July 3 when the girls were with Kristen. AR 1364.

Regina emailed Kazaryan on July 2, 2018 to say that she was going on vacation from July 19 to 24, taking the kids camping, and then she and her husband were going away alone for some adult time. AR 1354-55. Kazaryan understood that Regina and her husband would be on vacation in the mountains and the girls were going to visit their grandparents. AR 1531.

On July 26, 2018, Kristen called Kazaryan to tell her she could not reach the grandparent who was supposed to be watching the children while Regina and her husband were out of town that week. AR 1357. Kazaryan tried calling and texting Regina but could not reach her. AR 1357-1358. Kazaryan’s text that day read “How do you reach Mom? She’s not answering me.” AR 1533. She was referring to Regina’s mother -- the children’s grandmother whom she believed was watching the children. AR 1533-34. Regina eventually texted that she had bad phone reception because she was in the mountains. AR 1358. Regina confirmed that Kristen was supposed to visit that day. AR 1358, 1416. When Kazaryyan asked how Kristen could talk to the grandmother watching over the kids, Regina did not answer due to a bad connection. AR 1358.

Kazaryan was not sure how to respond to a situation where Kristen was waiting to have her scheduled visit. AR 1358. By this point, Regina owed Kristen multiple visits with her children. AR 1358-59. Kazaryan decided to conduct an emergency visit and informed supervisor Wikler. AR 1358. She wanted to pick up the kids and transport them to Kristen. AR 1366. When she arrived at the home, she knocked but did not hear anything. AR 1358. She called Kristen and told her she would have to visit another time. AR 1358.

This July 26 attempted visit information is in the report to the court, but Kazaryan took responsibility for not entering the contact narrative in the CSW/CMS. AR 1366. If she had recorded the information, she would have said there was a scheduled visit with the biological mother, she looked around the house for a few minutes, heard nothing and saw nobody, and called Kristen to cancel the visit and promised to arrange a future one. AR 1366-67.

Kazaryan performed a home visit on November 30, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. AR 1369, 1371. She had planned a visit for November 23, which was Black Friday, but Regina cancelled it and asked if they could do it the next week. AR 1368-69. Kazaryan agreed and the visit was set for November 30 after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. AR 1369. Due to oversight, Kazaryan did not change her contact report which she already had entered into CSW/CMS, or her mileage claim, to match the actual November 30 date. AR 1368-69, 1457-59.

Kazaryan wanted to conduct the visit the next day instead because she worked late on November 30 to finish a court report. AR 1370. She then realized that the next day would be December 1, which meant that she would be in violation of the requirement that she visit in November. AR 1370. She therefore informed Regina that she would visit the evening of November 30, 2018, and Regina agreed. AR 1371. That information was omitted from Regina’s affidavit. AR 1371.

Kazaryan requested overtime for the planned November 23 visit. The Form 158 for that overtime was dated November 20, three days before the scheduled date of November 23. AR 1460-61. The two hours listed on the mileage claim form for going to Granada Hills should have been for November 30. AR 1468. Kazaryan did not fill out a mileage claim for November 30, the actual date of the visit. AR 1465. She also did not claim or receive overtime pay for the November 30 work. AR 1464, 1553. She just did not realize that she had not changed the date from November 23 to November 30. AR 1553.

Kazaryan did have a home visit with the children on March 23, 2019. AR 1429. Kazaryan texted Jeffrey on March 22, 2019. AR 1426. Because he was the biological father, one of her goals was to reunify him with his children. AR 1426. They were coordinating when he could visit, when the mother could visit, and what help HSAs could offer. AR 1427. Although the texts refer to Jeffrey going to a restaurant with the girls, it was considered a monthly home visit, which can take place at any agreed location like a daycare or parent’s home. AR 1429-30. CSWs still try to have at least every other visit be at the foster home. AR 1429-30.

Kazaryan’s pre-approved Form 158 listed the meeting time as 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. AR 1451. At the last minute, Jeffrey asked to schedule the visit for dinner instead of lunch. AR 1451-1452. This did not make the request fraudulent because Kazaryan still worked four hours of overtime, but from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. instead. AR 1451-52. She forgot to change and initial her Form 158 to reflect the different time. AR 1452.

In April 2019, Regina had moved to Wisconsin and the children were still with her husband. AR 1432. They decided to have a CFT meeting to plan the resulting issues. AR 1431-32. Kazaryan was trying to set up the meeting with all relevant team members, including her supervisor Locke. AR 1432. Locke said she was on vacation, so Kazaryan told Regina that the CFT meeting was not possible. AR 1433. Regina was upset, but it was beyond Kazaryan’s control. AR 1433. Kazaryan told Regina that they would schedule the CFT in May. AR 1433.

Kazaryan had visits with the children that month, just not in the home. AR 1433. Kazaryan had visits with the children that month, but not in the home. AR 1433. Kazaryan initially did not recall if she attended one of the HSA meetings. AR 1914. Those were monitored visits for the parents and the HSAs relieve the CSW of performing that task. AR 1590. Kazaryan subsequently conceded that she was not part of any of the April 9, April 17, and April 27 visits logged in by HSAs. AR 1589-90. She explained that she may have logged a visit under the name of the oldest of the three children, but CWS/CMS did not properly populate she had visited all three children. AR 1587-88. The system lists the three children as separate cases and not the same case. AR 1584, 1588. Contacts may have been missing from any one child’s file as a result. AR 1588.

Kazaryan had a visit scheduled for an April home visit that Regina cancelled because she was upset that the CFT meeting would not occur. AR 1591. Regina would not allow Kazaryan to conduct her home visit for the month, and it was a “missed visit”. AR 1591. DCFS is not the police and CSWs cannot force their way into the home to conduct visits. AR 1591. The computerized system informs CSWs when there are missed visits for a particular month. AR 1441.

She performed a home visit in May 2019. AR 1595. Some ghost contacts occur because a supervisor will interrupt Kazaryan while she types the contact report. AR 1440. She usually remembers to come back and finish, but she forgot at times. AR 1440. This was true for the May 2019 contact. AR 1595-96. Kazaryan conceded that this was a mistake. AR 1597.

Wikler has been employed by DCFS as a dependency investigative supervisor since December 2019. AR 1477. Prior to that time, Wikler served as a continuing services supervisor for 20 years. AR 1478. Wikler supervised Kazaryan from 2010 to December 2018. AR 1479.

Kazaryan was Wikler’s co-lead worker in his unit. AR 1479. Kazaryan was a seasoned worker who did extremely well. AR 1479. Wikler had no concerns about her social work or what she did when she was with her clients. AR 1479. Kazaryan’s visits with her children were roughly at a hundred percent on a regular basis. AR 1480. There are times when a CSW cannot make a monthly visit, often because the family did not make itself available. AR 1480. She documented missed visits and her efforts to make them. AR 1480.

Kazaryan was the CSW on the Regina case file while Wikler was her direct supervisor. AR 1481. Wikler did not receive any complaints from Regina about Kazaryan during the entire time he was Kazaryan’s supervisor. AR 1482. Regina did call him once or twice, but only about funding-related issues. AR 1482.

Wikler was Kazaryan’s supervisor before the Form 158s were electronic. AR 1484. CSWs informed Wikler via phone call or text if the time for a pre-approved Form 158 had changed. AR 1483. They would change the overtime request by scratching out the old time and replacing it with a new one. AR 1484. Wikler would then change his documentation once the CSW got back to the office. AR 1484. That flexibility in scheduling was necessary for the CSWs due to the nature of their work, including the unavailability of the family at a specific time. AR 1488.

Kazaryan worked a lot of overtime, more than any other CSW in his unit. AR 1488. Kazaryan’s overtime was attributable to her own caseload and time spent assisting other CSWs on their cases. AR 1489. For this reason, the amount of overtime worked by Kazaryan was not unusual. AR 1489. Wikler never doubted Kazaryan worked the overtime she claimed. AR 1482-83.

A ghost contact could mean that the contact was not done. AR 1508. It could also mean the contact was done and that the CSW started the entry with the intent to complete it later, but it did not for whatever reason. AR 1509. It was not unusual for a CSW to make the contact, start the entry, and not go back to complete the entry for a good faith reason. AR 1509. An increase in workload sometimes makes it impossible to log contacts within 72 hours. AR 1509-10.

Kristen could not recall whether she had a reachable phone number in July 2018. AR 1676. She assumed so because she always kept updated records of her contact information with whatever CSW was assigned to her children at the time. AR 1676.

Kazaryan had her phone number on July 26, 2019. AR 1680. The two talked about how the girls were not at Regina’s house that day. AR 1681. She did not get to see her girls on that date. AR 1681-82. Kristen recalled that they were out-of-state with their grandparents. AR 1682.

Danielle Murphy oversaw Adam Holguin, the CSW who had Regina’s case from 2019 to 2020. AR 1732. It was hard to nail Regina down to visits. AR 1736. He understood that Regina thought Jeffery was a “Disneyland dad” who would not reunify. AR 1736. Regina appeared to really want the children and made scheduling difficult. AR 1737. This is not an unusual situation for caregivers. AR 1737. Some are frustrated or fed up and some have become attached to the children. AR 1737.

On June 28, 2022, the Hearing Officer issued a report recommending that the Commission overturn Kazaryan’s termination and award her backpay from October 25, 2021. AR 86, 115.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the allegations in the NOD were not true. AR 90. The fact that all the allegations concerned Kazaryan’s conduct with one family undermined any argument that she has a practice of falsifying documents and neglecting her job duties. AR 91. The superior court ordered reunification of the children with their parents, which was therefore one of Kazaryan’s responsibilities. AR 91.

Locke became Kazaryan’s supervisor in February 2019, but a lot of the allegations concerned events pre-dating her supervision. AR 91-92. Kazaryan’s previous supervisor, Wilker, said that she was an extremely reliable and honest employe. AR 92. In contrast, Locke and Kazaryan clashed almost immediately, and it only worsened over time. AR 92, 108. By February or March 2019, Locke started to question Kazaryan’s’ use of overtime and reported concerns to Mosley. AR 92. She also refused to endorse a mileage reimbursement request because it did not match other documents turned in. AR 92. Locke stated that Kazaryan was the only CSW who used overtime, and Locke felt that fact was significant. AR 92.

Kazaryan took a FMLA leave due to workplace stress in mid-2019. Locke first spoke with Regina in June and July 2019 to discuss County funding so that the children could move with her to Wisconsin. AR 93. Regina blamed Kazaryan for the fact that funding was not in place, and she also alleged that Kazaryan often missed monthly visits with the family or waited to do them at the last minute. AR 93. The Hearing Officer opined that Locke welcomed this negative report based on her own suspicions and doubts about Kazaryan. AR 93.

While Kazaryan was on leave, Locke spoke to Mosley, and Mosely spoke to Performance Management, about Regina’s complaint. AR 93. Neither supervisor asked Kazaryan for her response to Kazaryan’s allegations. AR 93. At the hearing, both Locke and Mosley distanced themselves from the investigation and termination of Kazaryan. AR 94. Mosley in particular testified that she did not have any role in the investigation and only reported Regina’s comments to Performance Management. AR 94.

Rodgers conducted a biased and incomplete investigation of Regina’s allegations. AR 94. She accepted the allegations as fact and failed to interview the birth parents. AR 94. Because visits often included at least one birth parent, they would have had personal knowledge of Kazaryan’s conduct as a CSW III. AR 94. Rodgers seemed to identify Locke and Regina as the “good guys” and Kazaryan and the birth parents as the suspicious wrongdoers, thereby creating a presumption of guilt. AR 95. The Rodgers Report failed to report on the facts in an unbiased way. AR 95.

An example of Rodgers’ bias concerns the July 26, 2018 overtime. AR 95. The evidence shows that Regina often frustrated Jeffrey, Kristen, and Kazaryan’s efforts to facilitate monthly visits. AR 95. Kazaryan scheduled a visit for July 26, 2018, based on the belief that the children would be home with a grandparent while Regina was in Las Vegas. AR 95. Kazaryan therefore filed for four hours of overtime. AR 95. The visit was not completed because the kids were in Las Vegas with Regina, but Regina never told anyone. AR 95. Kazaryan visited the house, rang the bell, and went home when no one responded. AR 96. She still spent two hours on this task and claimed overtime for it, but Rodgers was adamant at the hearing that the hours were still fraudulent without actual contact. AR 96. When the Hearing Officer asked if Rodgers expected Kazaryan to donate the time it took to go to the home and check, Rodgers had no answer. AR 96.

Rodgers’ understanding is legally flawed and contrary to California employment law. Rodgers demonstrated expectation bias; she expects to find fraud and all the evidence looked like fraud to her. AR 96.

Another example of Rodgers’ bias is her findings about the Form 158s. AR 96-97. The evidence showed that all CSWs in Kazaryan’s office were forced to modify preapproved overtime requests, often in minor ways. AR 97. For example, the requested overtime start and end time might change but not the number of hours. AR 97. Kazaryan’s former supervisor, Wikler, allowed CSWs to pencil in these changes and submit the corrected form to him. AR 97. He never thought Kazaryan was untruthful in making her changes. AR 97.

Rodgers applied a very rigid test to Kazaryan, treating any change to a Form 158 after approval as fraud. AR 97. She refused to even consider that the Department’s procedure was flawed and that DCFS policy was at fault for failing to recognize the need for flexibility. AR 97-98. After Locke became supervisor, she issued a memorandum to instruct CSWs to resubmit a new Form 158 if changes became necessary. AR 98. Locke testified that the lack of procedural clarity before then meant Kazaryan had not engaged in misconduct. AR 98. Rodgers fixated on defending her findings of fraud, despite evidence discounting such findings. AR 98. Her testimony was unreliable due to expectation bias. AR 111.

Rauso’s testimony as decisionmaker raised other concerns. Because he became the new Regional Administrator while Kazaryan was on leave, he never worked with Kazaryan before or during the time of the alleged wrongdoing. AR 98. Whether he knew about Kazaryan’s excellent work history is unclear. AR 99. He testified that he terminated Kazaryan because “staff” recommended termination. AR 99. By “staff”, he meant Mosley. AR 99. This testimony contradicted Mosley’s testimony that she had a limited role in the investigation after she reported Regina’s complaint to Performance Management. AR 99. Such testimony was false because both Locke and Mosley advocated to Rauso that he should terminate Kazaryan. AR 111.

Rauso’s testimony also raised Skelly issues about the failure to provide the Rodgers Report to Kazaryan. AR 99. The Rodgers Report had not been given to the Skelly officer and was not marked as an exhibit for the appeal hearing. AR 99-100. Rauso testified that he reviewed the Rodgers Report, but DCFS’ counsel admitted that it had never been given to Rauso. AR 100. The Hearing Officer found that DCFS did not provide Rauso with a copy. AR 110. DCFS’ counsel argued that it had no Skelly duty to provide the Rodgers Report to Kazaryan. AR 100, 110-11. The question becomes: What basis did Rauso have to terminate Kazaryan if he did not read the Rodgers Report? AR 100. The answer seems to be Mosley’s recommendation. AR 100. This raises the issue of who actually decided to terminate Kazaryan? It appears to have been an institutional decision based purely on momentum from Regina’s complaint without any managerial oversight. AR 100.

DCFS did not call Regina as a witness, even though her accusations initiated the investigation. AR 100-01. Regina’s hearsay affidavit was not credible. AR 101. Regina was difficult, and she actively opposed Kazaryan’s attempts at reunification of the children with their parents. AR 101, 109, 111. She accused Kazaryan of missing home visits, but her definition of a home visit was erroneous because it was limited to visits to Regina’s home. AR 101.

Regina and Locke found common cause in their shared disdain of Kazaryan. AR 102. Regina wanted to adopt the kids, which is contrary to the stated intent of both DCFS and the superior court. AR 102, 109. Lockes’ dislike of Kazaryan is harder to explain but no less evident. AR 12. Locke felt disrespected by Kazaryan and experienced tension and conflict ever since she became her manager. AR 102. Rodgers failed to detect the clear bias of both Locke and Regina in her investigation. AR 102.

Kazaryan was the only witness with personal knowledge of the merits of the allegations, and her testimony was generally credible. AR 102. She had a 20-year history without discipline, and she testified that she never falsified Form 158s, field itineraries, mileage claim forms, or entries in CWS/CMS. AR 103. Revisions after approval were necessary to ensure accuracy because clients often changed the meeting times or locations too close to the meeting for advanced approval. AR 103.

Kazaryan disputed the allegation that she falsified an overtime claim and an CWS/CMS entry for November 23, 2018. AR 103. Regina cancelled the visit for that date, and they agreed via text to a visit on November 30. AR 103. Kazaryan had an overtime request and field itinerary for November 23 pre-approved, and she forgot to change the paperwork. AR 103-04.

Although Regina’s complaint accused Kazaryan of cancelling visits or waiting for the last day to conduct them, Regina left out the fact that she is the one who cancelled the November 23 meeting at the last minute. AR 104. Kazaryan’s failure to change the date in the record was a simple mistake, not willful dishonesty. AR 104. In any case, this shows that Regina’s complaint cannot be trusted because it hides her own culpability to paint Kazaryan in a bad light. AR 104-105.

DCFS’s accusations were not based on reliable evidence. AR 105. Regional Administrator Rauso terminated Kazaryan based solely on the recommendation of Mosley. AR 105. Mosley’s only role, based on her testimony, was to report what Locke told her to Performance Management and the County Auditor. AR 105. Locke testified that she had concerns regarding Kazaryan but did not testify to any specific wrongdoing. AR 105. Each of DCFS’s witnesses relied on unreliable hearsay or lacked personal knowledge of any alleged wrongdoing. AR 105.

Kazaryan’s testimony, on the other hand, was credible and provided detailed personal knowledge explaining and excusing the alleged wrongdoing as either being accepted protocol or good faith errors. AR 105. Kazaryan credibly denied any wrongful intent. AR 105.

DCFS also committed a due process (Skelly) violation. AR 106. DCFS failed to provide a copy of the Rodgers Report to Kazaryan prior to the Skelly hearing. AR 106. Nor did it provide a copy to Rauso, who made the decision to discharge Kazaryan. AR 106. DCFS’s failure to provide the document to Kazaryan was a clear violation of due process. AR 107.

The discipline imposed was not appropriate because the allegations in DCFS’s September 17, 2020 NOD were not true. AR 107. The remedy for the due process (Skelly) violation is back pay up to the date of the civil service evidentiary hearing, October 25, 2021. AR 108. The remedy for the Skelly violation would be mooted if Kazaryan’s discharge is rescinded and back pay provided. AR 108.

Locke and Kazaryan experienced friction as soon as Locke became her supervisor. AR 108.

Regina felt strongly that she should be permitted to adopt the children, but the court ordered DCFS to provide reunification services to the family. AR 109. Because of her interest in adopting the three minor children, Regina was often uncooperative. AR 109. She would hide the children and withhold information, all to frustrate reunification efforts. AR 109.

After DCFS received Regina’s complaint, it assigned Rodgers to investigate. AR 110. She produced the Rodgers Report, but Rauso, the decisionmaker, did not have access to it. AR 110. DCFS also failed to provide Kazaryan a copy of the Rodgers Report until after the hearing began. AR 110-11. The Rodgers Report was not credible and reflected expectation bias. AR 111.

DCFS relied on Regina’s complaint to prepare the NOD, but the complaint was biased and not credible. AR 111. The same is true for her affidavit. AR 111.

Locke and Mosley testified that they had no input into the decision to terminate Kazaryan. AR 111. Rauso based his decision to terminate her on their recommendation, not the Rodgers Report that he did not even see. AR 111.

DCFS failed to show that Kazaryan falsified Form 158s, CWS/CMS, field itineraries, and milage claims. AR 112. She did work two hours of overtime on July 26, 2018. AR 112. Although she reported overtime on November 23, 2018, and not November 30, it was an inadvertent error. AR 112. Her failure to update the four-hour timeframe for overtime on March 23, 2019 was also inadvertent. AR 113.

As for home visits, the evidence showed Kazaryan conducted visits on November 30, 2018 and May 4, 2019. AR 113. For April 2019, Kazaryan could not be certain whether she attended the three home visits that HSAs documented, but she believed that she attended one. AR 113. She did not separately document it. AR 113. The evidence on whether she personally conducted a home visit that month was inconclusive. AR 113.

For the Skelly issues, the Rodgers Report summarizes the evidence and factual findings that allegedly supported the termination. AR 114. DCFS relied on the Rodgers Report, and its failure to give this to Kazaryan or Rauso in pre-deprivation disclosures means it withheld material information from both. AR 114.

The allegations in DCFS’ September 17, 2020 NOD are not true and discipline is not appropriate. AR 114. Kazaryan’s termination should be rescinded, and she should be returned to her former position and awarded backpay. AR 114.

The Department also violated Kazaryan’s Skelly rights and she should be awarded back pay from the date of termination to October 25, 2021 to cure the due process violation. AR 115.

On September 7, 2022, DCFS objected to the Hearing Officer’s report and recommendation. AR 119-141. On October 26, 2022, the Commission overruled DCFS’ objections and adopted the Hearing Officer’s report and his recommendation not to sustain Kazaryan’s termination. AR 241-42.

Petitioner County seeks administrative mandamus, contending that the Hearing Officer’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

The Hearing Officer found that Rodgers conducted a biased and incomplete investigation of Regina’s allegations. AR 94. She accepted the allegations as fact and failed to interview the birth parents who would have had personal knowledge of Kazaryan’s conduct of home visits. AR 94. Rodgers seemed to identify Locke and Regina as the good guys and Kazaryan and the birth parents as suspicious wrongdoers, thereby creating a presumption of guilt. AR 95.

The Hearing Officer gave as an example Rodgers’ adamance that Kazaryan’s request for two hours of overtime on July 28, 2018 was fraudulent because she attempted but did not have actual contact with the children. AR 95-96. A second example was Rodgers’ rigid treatment of any change to an approved Form 158 as fraud, even though DCFS policy was at fault for failing to recognize the need for flexibility and Locke’s admission that the lack of procedural clarity until May 2019 meant that Kazaryan had not engaged in misconduct. AR 98.

The Hearing Officer essentially found that Rauso’s decision to terminate Kazaryan lacked foundation. He was the decisionmaker, but he never worked with her and never read the Rodgers Report. What basis did Rauso have to terminate Kazaryan if he did not read the Rogers Report? AR 100. He testified that he terminated Kazaryan because “staff” recommended it. AR 99. By that, he meant Mosley. AR 99. Yet, Mosley testified that she had a limited role in the investigation after reporting Regina’s complaint to Performance Management. AR 99. The Hearing Officer concluded that Kazaryan’s termination appeared to have been an institutional decision based purely on momentum from Regina’s complaint without any managerial oversight. AR 100.

The Hearing Officer found that Regina’s hearsay affidavit was not credible. AR 101. Regina was a difficult caregiver to deal with, and she actively opposed Kazaryan’s attempts at reunification of the children with their parents. AR 101, 109, 111. She accused Kazaryan of missing home visits, but her definition of a home visit was erroneous because it was limited to visits to Regina’s home. AR 101.

The Hearing Officer also found Locke biased. Lockes’ dislike of Kazaryan was hard to explain, but she felt disrespected by Kazaryan and experienced tension and conflict ever since she became Kazaryan’s manager. AR 102.

Finally, the Hearing Officer found Kazaryan to be credible. She was the only witness with personal knowledge of the merits of the allegations. AR 102. She had a 20-year history without discipline, and she testified that she never falsified Form 158s, field itineraries, mileage claim forms, or entries in CWS/CMS. AR 103. Revisions after approval were necessary to ensure accuracy because clients often changed the meeting times or locations, too close to the meeting for advanced approval. AR 103. Kazaryan provided detailed personal knowledge explaining and excusing the alleged wrongdoing as either being accepted protocol or good faith errors. AR 105. Kazaryan credibly denied any wrongful intent. AR 105.

The court agrees with the Hearing Officer that Rodgers failed to conduct a complete investigation and applied rigid interpretations of the evidence and Department policy that were unwarranted. This was not necessarily a bias; it was just an inadequate investigation. The court further agrees that Regina’s hearsay affidavit is suspect because of her prejudice against Kazaryan and misunderstanding of the definition of a home visit.[3] The court also agrees that Rauso lacked sufficient knowledge of the facts and did not make an independent decision to terminate Kazaryan. The court does not agree with the Hearing Officer that Locke was prejudiced against Kazaryan; that conclusion is not supported by any significant evidence. See Pet. Op. Br. at 10.

None of these credibility findings is crucial, however, because the only witness who matters is Kazaryan. The entire case against her was based on documentary evidence and DCFS’ interpretation of it. Kazaryan was the only witness with personal knowledge of the events, and she provided an explanation for every accusation against her. Some of her explanations involved an admission of documentation errors, but she was not accused of making errors. Rather, she was accused of deliberately falsifying records and failing to make certain home visits. The Hearing Officer found Kazaryan’s explanations to be credible and that fact is dispositive.

“On substantial evidence review, we do not ‘weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it.’” Doe v. Regents of University of California, (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1073. The court is required to accept all evidence which supports the successful party, disregard the contrary evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. Minelian v. Manzella, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 457, 463. Credibility is an issue of fact for the finder of fact to resolve (Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 613, 622, and the testimony of a single witness, even that of a party, is sufficient to provide substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. In re Marriage of Mix, (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614. Doe v. Regents of University of California, (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1074.

The County argues that, although the court’s review is limited under the substantial evidence standard, that does not preclude the court from determining whether Kazaryan’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence” is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, (California Youth Authority supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 585), or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. Mohilef v. Janovici, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at 305, n. 28. Reply at 3.

As discussed post, Kazaryan had reasonable and solid explanations for the each of the six instances of misconduct of which she was accused. Because the Hearing Officer believed her, her explanations are substantial evidence requiring denial of the County’s Petition.

On July 2, 2018, Regina informed Kazaryan via email of a vacation she planned to take with the children from July 19 to 24, 2008. AR 307, 626. Regina would then visit her parents until July 29. AR 307. Kazaryan’s handwritten notes (AR 1355-56) state that this meant the children would not be with Regina during her visit to her parents and instead would be with their grandparents from Las Vegas. AR 307. She also wrote “mother’s visits will be arranged by grandparents.” AR 307.

Kazaryan’s Form 158, submitted on July 17, 2018, requests two hours of overtime for a monthly home visit on July 26, 2018. AR 1984. Kazaryan stated that the overtime was necessary because the children’s biological mother, Kristen, was unavailable during regular work hours. See AR 1984.

A Delivered Service Log shows that on July 26, 2018, Kazaryan texted Kristen at both numbers on file for her. AR 1832. She asked Kristen to call because she had been unable to reach her. AR 1832.

The log then shows that, on July 26, 2018 at 9:29 a.m., Kazaryan texted Regina and asked her to call because Kazaryan tried to talk to her the day before and the call went to voicemail. AR 1836. At 10:48 a.m., Regina replied that she did not have great cell service where she was but would call shortly. AR 1839. Kazaryan also asked Regina if the kids were having visits with their mother, Kristen. AR 1839. Regina said the children are having visits with Kristen and they typically see her on Tuesdays and Thursdays. AR 1840. Kazaryan replied that Kristen was not answering her calls or texts and she wanted to see the children’s visits with their mother. AR 1840.

Kazaryan testified that Regina emailed her on July 2 to say that she was going on vacation from July 19 to 24, taking the kids camping, and then she and her husband were going away alone for some adult time. AR 1354-55. Kazaryan understood that Regina and her husband were on vacation in the mountains and that the girls were going to visit their grandparents. AR 1531.

On July 26, 2018, Kristen called Kazaryan to tell her she could not reach the grandparent who was supposed to be watching the children while Regina and her husband were out of town that week. AR 1357. Kazaryan tried calling and texting Regina but could not reach her. AR 1357-1358. 1Kazaryan’s text to Regina that day read “How do you reach Mom? She’s not answering me.” AR 1533. She was referring to Regina’s mother -- the children’s grandmother -- whom she believed was watching the children. AR 1533-34. Regina eventually texted that she had bad cell reception because she was in the mountains. AR 1358. Regina confirmed that Kristen was supposed to visit that day. AR 1358, 1416. When Kazaryan asked how Kristen could talk to the grandmother watching the kids, Regina did not answer due to a bad phone connection. AR 1358.

Kazaryan was not sure how to respond in a situation when Kristen was waiting to have her scheduled visit. AR 1358. By this point, Regina owed Kristen multiple visits with her children. AR 1358-59. Kazaryan decided to conduct an emergency visit and informed supervisor Wikler. AR 1358. She wanted to pick up the kids and transport them to Kristen. AR 1366. When she arrived at the home, she knocked but did not hear anything. AR 1358. She called Kristen and told her she would have to visit another time. AR 1358.

Although Kazaryan reported the July 26 attempted visit in her report to the court, she took responsibility for not entering the contact narrative in CSW/CMS. AR 1366. If she had properly entered the contact, she would have said there was a scheduled visit with the biological mother, she looked around the house for a few minutes, heard nothing and saw nobody, and called Kristen to cancel the visit and promised to arrange a future one. AR 1366-67.

The Hearing Officer found that Regina often frustrated Jeffrey, Kristen, and Kazaryan’s efforts to facilitate monthly visits. AR 95. Kazaryan scheduled a visit for July 26, 2018, based on the belief that the children would be home with a grandparent while Regina was in Las Vegas. AR 95. The visit was not completed because the kids were in Las Vegas with Regina, but Regina never told anyone. AR 95. Kazaryan visited the house, rang the bell, and went home when no one responded. AR 96. She spent two hours on this task and claimed overtime for it, but Rodgers was adamant in her testimony that the hours were fraudulent since there was no actual contact. AR 96. Rodgers’ understanding was legally flawed and contrary to California employment law. AR 96. Kazaryan did work two hours of overtime on July 26, 2018. AR 112.

The County argues that the Hearing Officer’s finding that Kazaryan worked the two hours of overtime on July 26, 2018 is not supported by the evidence. Rather, the evidence corroborates Regina’s allegation that Kazaryan did not conduct a home visit on July 26, 2018 because she (Regina) and the children were out of town. AR 623. Pet. Op. Br. at 5.

Kazaryan admitted that a home visit did not occur on July 26, 2018, but claimed she spent two hours conducting an unannounced visit to Regina’s Granada Hills residence. Kazaryan falsely claimed overtime for that date because she knew there was no reason for an unannounced visit as the children were in Las Vegas with their grandparents, as Kristen confirmed. AR 1681-82. Kristen testified that she was reachable all day, and that Kazaryan had her phone number. AR 1676-83. Pet. Op. Br. at 5-6.

Kazaryan did not log in CWS/CMS that she conducted an unannounced visit. Instead, Kazaryan logged that she was unable to contact the mother. AR 1832. Kazaryan’s contemporaneous text messages with Regina show that Regina responded to Kazaryan well before the unannounced visit between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., and that Kazaryan was unable to communicate with Kristen, not Regina or the grandparents. AR 1836-40. Kazaryan claimed the reference to “mother” in her July 3, 2018 log referred to Regina’s mother (the children’s grandmother). AR 1533-37. Kazaryan’s illogical claim is refuted by her own log entries on July 3 and July 26, 2018, where she consistently referred to Kristen as mother. AR 1832. Kazaryan did not note in any Department record that she conducted an unannounced visit. Kazaryan also did not revise her Form 158 to reflect that her reason for working overtime had changed from a scheduled home visit to an unannounced visit. AR 1366-67, 1984. Pet. Op. Br. at 6.

The County wrongly believes that its interpretation of the text messages should control. The issue is not whether its interpretation of the messages is viable or constitutes substantial evidence, but rather whether Kazaryan’s testimony, as corroborated by the messages, is substantial evidence. The parties’ dispute whether Kazaryan believed the children were with the grandparents in Las Vegas or with them at the family home. Regina confirmed that Kristen was supposed to visit on July 26, 2018. AR 1358, 1416. Kristen called Kazaryan that day and said that she could not reach the grandparent who was supposed to be watching the children while Regina and her husband were out of town. AR 1357. Mistaken or not, the undisputed evidence is that Kazaryan conducted an emergency visit to Regina’s home and informed supervisor Wikler. AR 1358. Kristen testified that she and Kazaryan talked about how the girls were not at Regina’s house that day and she did not get to see them. AR 1681-82.

Substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that Kazaryan conducted an emergency visit on July 26, 2018 and that there was no legitimate basis to deny her overtime for doing so.

Kazaryan’s Form 158 submitted on November 20, 2018, requests two hours of overtime for November 23, 2018. AR 1870. It states that the hours were necessary for a home visit where the family was not available during regular work hours. AR 1870.

On November 22, 2018, Regina texted Kazaryan to cancel the next day’s visit and asked to reschedule for some time the next week. AR 2050. Kazaryan’s handwritten notes on a printout of this message state that she rescheduled for November 30, 2018 but failed to update the field itinerary and mileage form to reflect that fact. AR 2050.

Kazaryan’s mileage claim for November 30, 2018 shows that she left DCFS’ office in Santa Clarita at 6:00 p.m., arrived in Van Nuys for a home visit with a different client at 6:30 p.m., and returned home at 11020 Eldorado Place in Los Angeles at 8:00 p.m. AR 1843. The form does not show a trip to Grenada Hills that day. AR 1843. Her field itinerary for November 30 shows a visit to “Jessica T.” at the Van Nuys address from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. AR 1859.

Kazaryan’s timecard shows two hours of overtime for November 23, 2018. AR 1991.

Kazaryan performed a home visit on November 30, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. AR 1369, 1371. She had planned a visit for November 23, which was Black Friday, but Regina cancelled and asked if they could do it the next week. AR 1368-69. Kazaryan agreed and the visit was set for November 30 after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. AR 1369. Due to an oversight, Kazaryan did not change her contact already entered in CSW/CMS, or her mileage claim, to match the November 30 date. AR 1368-69, 1457-59.

Kazaryan wanted to conduct the visit the next day because she worked late on November 30 to finish a court report. AR 1370. But she realized that the next day would be December 1 and by waiting she would be violating the requirement that she have a November visit. AR 1370. She therefore informed Regina that she would visit the evening of November 30, 2018, and Regina agreed. AR 1371. That information was omitted from Regina’s affidavit. AR 1371.

Kazaryan requested overtime for the planned November 23 visit and the Form 158 for that visit was dated November 20, three days before the scheduled date of November 23. AR 1460-61. The two hours listed on the mileage claim form for going to Granada Hills should have been for November 30. AR 1468. Kazaryan did not submit an additional mileage claim for November 30, the actual date of the visit. AR 1465. She also did not submit an additional claim for overtime for the November 30 visit. AR 1464, 1553. She simply did not realize that she had not changed the paperwork date from November 23 to November 30. AR 1553.

Kazaryan disputed the allegation that she falsified an overtime claim and an CWS/CMS entry for November 23, 2018. AR 103. Regina cancelled the visit for that date, and they agreed via text to a visit on November 30. AR 103. Kazaryan had an overtime request and filed itinerary for November 23 pre-approved, and she forgot to change the paperwork. AR 103-04.

Regina’s complaint accused Kazaryan of cancelling visits or waiting for the last day to conduct them. AR 104. Regina left out the fact that she cancelled the November 23 meeting at the last minute. AR 104. Kazaryan’s failure to change the date in the record was a simple mistake, not willful dishonesty. AR 104. Although she reported overtime on November 23, 2018, and not November 30, this was an inadvertent error. AR 112.

The County argues that Kazaryan admitted that she did not work overtime on November 23, 2018, and that her November 23, 2018 timesheet was not accurate. AR 1550-52, 1991-92. Kazaryan further admitted that she did not travel on November 23, 2018 from her residence in Shadow Hills to Regina’s residence in Granada Hills and return home as indicated on her mileage claim and field itinerary. AR 1465-70, 1563, 1843, 1859. Pet. Op. Br. at 6.

Kazaryan did not document that she worked overtime on November 30, 2018. She did not submit a field itinerary or a Form 158 seeking approval to work overtime on November 30, 2018. AR 1457-65. Kazaryan did not even alter her Form 158 to reflect that she worked overtime on November 30, 2018, even though this was her admitted practice. AR 1337-38, 1870.

Kazaryan claimed that she created a ghost contact in CWS/CMS for a visit on November 23, 2018, and that she forgot to change the date from November 23 to November 30, 2018. AR 1369, 1862, 1867. The text messages contradict Kazaryan’s testimony that she worked overtime on November 30, 2018. AR 2050-52. They only show that Regina cancelled the home visit scheduled for November 23, 2018, and that Kazaryan attempted to re-schedule the home visit for the following week. Kazaryan did not submit any text message showing that she was successful in re-scheduling the visit, that she arrived at Regina’s residence, or that the home visit took place on November 30, 2018. AR 2050- 52. Pet. Op. Br. at 7.

Kazaryan claimed that she did not arrive at Regina’s home in Granada Hills until 7:00 p.m. on November 30, 2018 because she had to complete a court report. Yet, Kazaryan’s mileage claim for November 30, 2018 shows she left DCFS’ office in Santa Clarita at 6:00 p.m., arrived in Van Nuys for a home visit for a different client at 6:30 p.m., and returned to her home address at 11020 Eldorado Pl in Los Angeles at 8:00 p.m. AR 1843. Kazaryan’s field itinerary for November 30, 2017 also shows that she was going to see client Jessica T. from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. AR 1859. Pet. Op. Br. at 7.

The County’s reliance on a November 30 field itinerary for another client, which by definition was prepared several days before November 30, is of little significance. It merely shows that Kazaryan scheduled another client to see on November 30 besides the last minute rescheduled visit to Regina. The mileage claim form contradicting Kazaryan’s testimony is more significant because it shows that Kazaryan was traveling between her office, the other client, and her home between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. It does not seriously contradict Kazaryan, however, because she agreed to visit Regina after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. AR 1369. She could have done so and still visited the other client, submitting mileage only for that client.

Kazaryan submitted no additional overtime for November 30. She did not claim additional mileage for November 30, probably because she was claiming mileage for the other client. Whether this other client visit affects the accuracy of her November 23 mileage submission is an issue not raised by the Department. In any event, Kazaryan explained that her failure to amend the November 23 paperwork, including the mileage claim, was a mistake.

Substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that Kazaryan conducted a home visit and incurred two hours of overtime on November 30, 2018, and that her reported overtime on November 23, 2018 was an inadvertent error.

On March 5, 2019, Kazaryan received approval to work four hours of overtime on March 23, 2018, a Saturday, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., for the purpose of taking the children to the drug treatment center where Kristen was an in-patient. AR 1878-79.

On March 22, 2019 at 11:25 p.m., Kazaryan texted the children’s father, Jeffrey, to arrange a visit the next day at 6:00 p.m. at a location somewhere around Grenada Hills if they wanted to get something to eat. AR 1882. Jeffrey chose a restaurant that afternoon, then another the next day after Kazaryan said the first restaurant was too loud for a monitored visit. AR 1882-83.

On March 23, 2019, sometime after 5:00 p.m., Kazaryan texted one of the children’s caregivers, Dave. AR 1887. Kazaryan said she was outside the home and asked Dave to bring the kids out for their visit with Jeffrey. AR 1887. Dave responded that he had to leave and took the kids with him. AR 1887. He thought the visit was at 4:00 p.m. AR 1887.

A Delivered Service Log shows a visit between the children and Jeffrey on March 9, 2019, but no entry for March 23, 2019. AR 1875.

Kazaryan had a home visit with the children on March 23, 2019. AR 1429. Kazaryan texted Jeffrey on March 22, 2019. AR 1426. Because he was the biological father, one of her goals was to reunify him with his children. AR 1426. They were coordinating when he could visit, when Kristin could visit, and what help HSAs could offer. AR 1427. Although the texts refer to Jeffrey going to a restaurant with the girls, it was considered a monthly home visit, which can take place at an agreed location like a daycare or parent’s home. AR 1429-30. She noted that CSWs still try to have at least every other visit at the foster home. AR 1429-30.

Kazaryan’s pre-approved Form 158 listed the meeting time as 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. AR 1451. At the last minute, Jeffrey asked to schedule the visit for dinner instead of lunch. AR 1451-1452. This did not make the request fraudulent because Kazaryan still worked four hours of overtime, but from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. AR 1451-52. She forgot to change and initial the Form 158 to reflect the different time. AR 1452.

DCFS failed to show that Kazaryan falsified Form 158s, CWS/CMS, field itineraries, and milage claims. AR 112. Her failure to update the four-hour timeframe for overtime on March 23, 2019 was inadvertent. AR 113.

Locke approved Kazaryan’s Form 158 to work overtime on March 23, 2019 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., for the purpose of taking the children to the drug treatment center where Kristen was an in-patient. AR 1878-79. Locke expected that Kazaryan would pick up the children and transport them to the drug treatment center where Kristen resided, the visit would occur during the indicated hours, and Kazaryan would log the visit in CWS/CMS. AR 859-65. Pet. Op. Br. at 8.

The County argues that the text messages between Kazaryan and Jeffrey establish that Kazaryan did not work overtime at the approved time and for the approved purpose. AR 1882-1884. The messages show that Kazaryan attempted to schedule a visit for Jeffrey, not Kristen. AR 1426. Kazaryan claimed the visit did not occur between the approved time of 1:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. because Jeffrey requested at the last minute to change the time. AR 1451-52. Yet, the text messages show that Kazaryan, not Jeffrey, suggested that the visit should occur between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. AR 1882-84. Pet. Op. Br. at 8.

Kazaryan did not submit any official documentation to substantiate that she monitored a visit for Jeffrey between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Kazaryan did not log a visit in CWS/CMS for March 23, 2019. The Delivered Service Logs for March 1 through March 31, 2019 show that Kazaryan visited the children on March 9, 2019. Kazaryan did not even alter the Form 158 overtime approval or her field itinerary to reflect that the time and purpose of the visit had changed. AR 1878-79. Pet. Op. Br. at 8.

Kazaryan’s opposition (see Opp. at 15) correctly notes that she was charged with intentionally falsifying her overtime hours, not making errors in CWS/CMS, the Delivered Service Log, or her Form 158. See Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. Bureau of Sec. & Investigative Servs., (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 445, 457 (fraud consists of the misrepresentation or concealment of material facts or a statement of fact made with consciousness of its falsity). The undisputed evidence is that she conducted the visit on March 23, 2019, albeit with Jeffrey, not Kristin, and at a restaurant, not Kristin’s treatment center. On March 23, 2019, Kazaryan drove to Regina’s home at approximately 5:00 p.m. to pick up the children for a supervised dinner with their father. That Kazaryan later forgot to update these documents to show the visit with the father and that it occurred at 6:00 p.m. has no bearing on the fact that the visit occurred.

Substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that Kazaryan properly claimed four hours of overtime on March 23, 2019.

On April 22, 2019, Kazaryan texted Locke to cancel a Children and Family Team (“CFT”) meeting scheduled that day and proposed meeting April 24, 2019 at 6 p.m. in Granada Hills. AR 2028-30. She subsequently proposed Thursday, April 25. AR 2030.

A Delivered Service Log for April 2019 shows visits by HSAs on April 9, 23, and 30, but not from Kazaryan. AR 1890-95.

In April 2019, Regina had moved to Wisconsin and the children were still with her husband. AR 1432. They decided to have a CFT meeting to plan. AR 1431-32. Kazaryan was trying to set up the meeting with all relevant team members, including her supervisor Locke. AR 1432. Locke said she was on vacation, so Kazaryan told Regina that it was not possible. AR 1433. Regina was upset, but it was beyond Kazaryan’s control. AR 1433. Kazaryan told Regina they would schedule the CFT in May. AR 1433.

Kazaryan had visits with the children that month, but not in the home. AR 1433. Kazaryan initially did not recall if she attended one of the HSA meetings. AR 1914. Those were monitored visits for the parents and the HSAs relieve the CSW of performing that task. AR 1590. Kazaryan subsequently conceded that she was not part of any of the April 9, April 17, and April 27 visits logged in by HSAs. AR 1589-90. She explained that she may have logged a visit under the name of the oldest of the three children, but CWS/CMS did not properly populate she had visited all three children. AR 1587-88. The system lists the three children as separate cases and not the same case. AR 1584, 1588. Contacts may have been missing from any one child’s file as a result. AR 1588.

Kazaryan had a visit scheduled for April in the home that Regina cancelled because she was upset that the CFT meeting would not occur. AR 1591. Regina would not allow Kazaryan to conduct her home visit for the month, and it was a “missed visit”. AR 1591. DCFS is not the police and CSWs cannot force their way into the home to conduct visits. AR 1591. The computerized system informs CSWs when there are missed visits for a particular month. AR 1441.

For April 2019, Kazaryan could not be certain whether she attended the three home visits that HSAs documented, but she believed she attended one but did not separately document it. AR 113. The evidence was inconclusive whether she conducted a home visit that month. AR 113.

The Hearing Officer’s finding the Department did not prove the allegation that Kazaryan failed to conduct a home visit in April 2019 is not supported by substantial evidence. The Delivered Service Logs in CWS/CMS show that Kazaryan did not document or log that she conducted a visit for the children in April 2019. AR 713, 879-888, 1890-95. It shows only the three visits by HSAs, and a visit by an HSA does not count as a monthly visit. AR 1198. Kazaryan admitted that she did not visit the children during the HSA visits. Nor did she conduct a regular visit of her own. While Kazaryan claimed that she may have logged a visit under the name of the oldest of the three sisters, and that CWS/CMS did not properly populate she had visited all three children (AR 1584-89), the Delivered Service Logs for April 2019 in CWS/CWS establish that the database was operable because the HSAs were able to enter contacts for all three children for the April visits. AR 1890-95. Pet. Op. Br. at 8-9.

Kazaryan responds that, while the Delivered Service Logs show only the HSA visits, that does not mean that Kazaryan failed to conduct an April 2019 visit. The Department had the burden to show her misconduct. DCFS did not call any of the HSAs to rebut Kazaryan’s testimony that she attended at least one of the meetings between the HSAs and children in April 2019. Opp. at 16-17.

The court need not decide whether there is substantial evidence that Kazaryan attended one of the April 2019 HSA visits because she attempted an April home visit. First, Kazaryan undisputably tried to arrange a CFT meeting in April. Rodgers did not know whether a CFT meeting would qualify as a monthly visit (AR 713), and the Department presented no evidence that it would not. Thus, Kazaryan’s efforts for a CFT meeting may well have been an attempted home visit, and this attempt was documented.[4]

Second, Regina refused to meet with Kazaryan in April 2019. The County argues without evidence that a caregiver refusing to allow a CSW to visit the children under her care raises obvious safety concerns. Yet, Kazaryan did not log any safety concerns in CWS/CMS or that she attempted to contact Regina or conduct an unannounced visit. AR 1890-95. Pet. Op. Br. at 9. The short answer is that Kazaryan was not charged with failing to document Regina’s refusal to meet in April 2019. Kazaryan’s unrebutted testimony is that Regina would not allow her to conduct her home visit for the month, and that it was a “missed visit”. AR 1591.

Substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that that the Department failed to meet its burden of proving that Kazaryan failed to conduct a home visit in April 2019.

On May 3, 2019, Kazaryan texted Jeffrey and asked if he could meet the next day at 5:00 p.m. for a court-ordered monitored visit at a restaurant called the “Habit”. AR 2054-55.

On May 4, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., Kazaryan texted Dave stating she was “here” and asking him to bring the girls out. AR 2056. Kazaryan’s handwritten notes state that this was so she could take them to visit their father. AR 1902. The Delivered Service Log has a contract entry for May 4 for the three children with no narrative. AR 1905.

Kazaryan performed a home visit in May 2019. AR 1595. Some ghost contacts occur in CWS/CMS because a supervisor will interrupt Kazaryan while she types the contact report. AR 1440. She usually remembers to come back and finish, but she could forget at times. AR 1440. This was true for her contact in May 2019. AR 1595-96. Kazaryan conceded it was a mistake not to complete the contact report. AR 1597.

The Hearing Officer’s finding that Kazaryan visited the children on May 4, 2019 is not supported by substantial evidence. Kazaryan did not log in CWS/CMS she conducted visit on May 4, 2019, but instead created a ghost contact with no notes documenting the visit. AR 1595-98, 1905. Department policy requires that CSWs log all contacts with clients in CWS/CMS, not though text messages. Kazaryan did not present any text messages confirming that Dave was home, or even knew a monitored visit had been scheduled. Pet. Op. Br. at 9-10.

The short answer is that Kazaryan was not charged with making an improper ghost contact in CWS/CMS. The text messages show that Kazaryan made arrangements to monitor a visit by Jeffrey with his children at a restaurant on May 4 and that she sent a text message to Dave informing him she had arrived and asking him to send the girls out. The Department presents no evidence that Dave did not send the girls out and that Jeffrey did not have a visit monitored by Kazaryan.

Substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that that Kazaryan conducted a home visit in May 2019.

Due process entitles such public employees to procedural safeguards before discipline is imposed against them, which include: (1) notice of the disciplinary action proposed to be taken; (2) a statement of the reasons therefor; (3) a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based; and (4) the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing the discipline. Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 215-16; see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, (1985) 470 U.S. 532, 538-41. The purpose of these safeguards is to protect the employee who is wrongly disciplined against the temporary deprivation of property before he has a hearing. Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at 215.

The County correctly notes (Pet. Op. Br. at 12) that the Hearing Officer determined, without citing any caselaw, that DCFS violated Kazaryan’s Skelly rights because it did not provide her with a copy of the Rodgers Report. The case law is clear that the Department was not obligated to present all material upon which the charges were based. “We reject appellant’s contention that the word ‘materials’ as used in Skelly means each and every document identified [as relied upon] was required to be produced prior to [the employee’s] pre-termination hearing in order to satisfy due process.” Gilbert v. City of Sunnyvale, (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1280. Pet. Op. Br. at 12.

The issue is whether the County provided Kazaryan with sufficient material upon which the NOI charges were based. This requires a comparison of the Skelly information provided to Kazaryan with the information in the Rodgers Report, something that the Hearing Officer failed to do. He merely noted that the Rodgers Report summarizes the evidence and factual findings that supported DCFS’ termination decision and concluded that DCFS’ failure to give it to Kazaryan violated Skelly. AR 114.

Kazaryan’s counsel did point out that the Rodgers Report has exculpatory information from Wilker that Kazaryan was unable to present at the Skelly proceeding. AR 1089. However, Kazaryan fails to show that exculpatory information must be provided for a Skelly hearing. Kazaryan also argues that the Rodgers Report contained a full summary of Wilker and Mosley’s interviews (Opp. at 19, n. 7), but fails to show those summaries were not provided in the Skelly proceeding or that they were material. The court agrees with the County that the Skelly violation is not supported by substantial evidence.[5] In any event, the issue is mooted by the fact that the Hearing Officer’s determination that Kazaryan was wrongly terminated is supported by substantial evidence.[6]

The Petition is denied. The Department’s case was entirely dependent on its interpretation of texts, emails, and Kazaryan’s official entries in CWS/CMS, field itineraries, mileage claims, and Form 158s. Kazaryan adequately explained these documents, admitted her failures, and credibly testified that she performed the tasks at issue and made no intentionally false entries. The Hearing Officer found her to be credible and his findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Kazaryan’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, serve it on the County’s counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for April 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

[1] As pointed out by Real Party Kazaryan (Opp. at 19, n. 7), the County’s moving papers fail to provide a table of contents and table of authorities as required by CRC 3.1113(f). Additionally, the County failed to include a bates-stamped version of the Hearing Officer’s decision in the trial notebook as ordered by the court at the trial setting conference. The County’s counsel is directed to follow all applicable CRC rules and court orders in future cases.

[2] One of the HSAs was named Tina Kazaryan (AR 1890), but she is no relation to Real Party Kazaryan.

[3] Rodgers also misunderstood the definition because she concluded that visiting the kids with the birth mother did not qualify as a monthly visit. AR 724. Yet, Mosley testified that a visit includes face-to-face contact with the children and their biological parents. AR 1184.

[4] The County notes that Kazaryan testified that she planned to conduct the CFT meeting on April 22, 2019 but Locke cancelled the meeting. Yet, the text messages show that Kazaryan cancelled the meeting, not Locke. AR 2028-30. Pet. Op. Br. at 9. This argument is unfair. Kazaryan clearly tried to arrange a CFT meeting. While Kazaryan canceled the April 22, 2019 meeting, she tried to set the meeting for April 24 and then for April 25, to no avail. AR 2028-30.

[5] The court has no opinion whether the failure to provide the Rodgers Report for the appeal hearing violated discovery requirements.

[6] The parties debate whether dismissal is the appropriate penalty, but substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s finding that Kazaryan is not guilty of the charges and the court need not address the penalty issue. See Pet. Op. Br. at 13-15; Opp. at 17-19.