Worcester Probate and Family Court

This is a State Auditor review of financial and management controls at the Worcester Probate and Family Court, focused mainly on the Register of Probate's Office from July 1, 2008 through May 31, 2010.

“The scope of our audit included a review of WPFC’s controls over administrative and operational activities, including cash management and revenue, for the period July 1, 2008 through May 31, 2010.”

The auditor checked whether the court had proper controls over money it collected and whether it followed state laws, court rules, and required procedures.

“Our audit objectives were to assess the adequacy of WPFC’s internal controls over cash management and revenues and determine the extent of controls for measuring, reporting, and monitoring effectiveness and efficiency regarding WPFC’s compliance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; other state guidelines; and AOTC and PFCD policies and procedures.”

The court handled millions of dollars in public money and court-held accounts, so weak controls could affect public funds and people whose money was held by the court.

“During the audit period July 1, 2008 through May 31, 2010, WPFC collected revenues of $3,153,114, which it disbursed to the Commonwealth as either general or specific revenue.”

If you use this court, the report matters because it looks at whether fees, fee waivers, employee time, and public money were handled properly.

“Chapter 211B of the Massachusetts General Laws established the Probate and Family Court Department (PFCD), which has jurisdiction over family matters such as divorce, paternity, child support, custody, visitation, adoptions, termination of parental rights, and abuse prevention.”

The court had basic controls in place, but auditors found several breakdowns: missing entry fees, poor time and attendance records, unsigned fee waivers, and failure to report missing money as required.

“Our audit revealed that the Register of Probate’s Office was missing $3,495 in Domestic Relations entry fees2 for 16 cases that were generally paid for in cash between March 2009 and August 2009.”

The court was told to improve its risk assessment and internal control plan, strengthen fee collection oversight, fix timekeeping, keep approving fee waivers properly, and report missing money to the State Auditor.

“WPFC should continue to strengthen its internal control plan to ensure compliance with Chapter 647 reporting requirements and report all unaccounted-for shortages, variances, losses, or thefts of funds or property to the OSA.”

The report is significant because it found that missing funds were not reported when they should have been, which stopped the State Auditor from acting sooner on possible control weaknesses.

“Therefore, the OSA was precluded from carrying out its responsibilities under Chapter 647, which requires that the OSA identify internal control weaknesses that may have contributed to the problems documented, make recommendations to correct the conditions found, identify necessary modifications to internal control policies and procedures, and report the matter to management and appropriate law enforcement officials.”

An internal control plan is the court's system for preventing mistakes, missing money, and rule violations; a risk assessment is how the court identifies where those problems might happen.

“We recommended that WPFC conduct a risk assessment and prepare an internal control plan, which should be periodically reviewed and updated, as necessary.”