Mom and Dad scraped the money together to hire a lawyer who managed to get the boys reunited with them at the six month review hearing. Mom and Dad are working with the boys to overcome the trauma stemming from the long separation. The boys blame Mom and Dad for failing to protect them from the state. They fear every knock at the door. They are even afraid to leave the house. They avoid encounters with the police. They have nightmares.
Amber continues to make progress in therapy with Mom and Dad. Likely she will be returned home within a few months.
Proposals for Reform
1. Federal funding should be changed to encourage local agencies to provide services in the home of the family whenever possible. Currently only 11% of the funding goes to family preservation. A social worker once told me she would love to send children in one of my cases home under court supervision but there was no money for that.
2. Jury trials should be afforded in juvenile dependency cases. I think one of the problems with court trials is that unless all parties agree, judges chronically fear returning children where the evidence warrants it. The judge does not want to bear the responsibility for making a bad choice so he makes the safe choice. This violates the law which requires return to the home unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the children would be at risk if returned.
3. The dependency courts need to be open to the public. The rationale for closed proceedings is to protect the privacy of children. While this is a legitimate concern, often these children will end up testifying in a public trial where the parents are accused of crimes arising from the same acts which led to the juvenile case. The privacy rationale fails at least with respect to child witnesses in parallel juvenile and criminal prosecutions.
Even when the identity of a child is known to the media in a high profile case, the child's name usually is not disclosed.
The case for public access is that transparency will help to curb the excesses described in this series. In particular, media has a role to play in keeping the system honest. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
4. Exclusive reliance by the courts on the opinions of expert witnesses and the input of services providers on the payroll of the social services agency corrupts the judicial process. One alternative is to take the function of hiring them away from the agency and place it somewhere else so that they will not skew their reports to favor the agency. Another alternative is to provide funding for the parents to hire their own experts to rebut the experts chosen by the agency.
5. Rules of evidence which permit cases to be decided on reports rather than live testimony should be repealed. Social services agencies should be required to prove their cases in the same manner as any other litigant.
Showing posts with label star chamber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label star chamber. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Star Chamber in America - Part 5
Mom and Dad are back at the Star Chamber for the third time. The court has received the disposition report of the social worker with Dr. Hack's report attached as an exhibit. The recommendation is for continued placement of Amber in foster care. The boys will live with the toxic grandmother. Both parents are ordered into therapy.
Dad has already started his school for sexual batterers. The instructor has demanded that he write about what he did to Amber. Dad who didn't do anything inappropriate refuses to admit that he did. The instructor explains that the first step in treatment is to overcome denial. If Dad can't do that, he cannot make progress. The instructor tells Dad that he will be reported as noncompliant unless he changes his mind.
Mom is furious. She tries to address the Star Chamber directly but instantly gets shut down because she's represented by counsel. "No, I'm not," Mom says. She goes on speaking until Judge Gruff tells her that she will be removed from the Star Chamber if she persists. Mom's attorney says nothing.
Mom and Dad have never been informed that they have a right to a contested hearing with witnesses if they want it. Their attorneys remain silent throughout the proceeding except to submit the matter on the social worker's report and Dr. Hack's evaluation.
The court orders six months of reunification services to both parents and sets a date six months away to evaluate their progress. The hearing is over in 15 minutes.
Dad has already started his school for sexual batterers. The instructor has demanded that he write about what he did to Amber. Dad who didn't do anything inappropriate refuses to admit that he did. The instructor explains that the first step in treatment is to overcome denial. If Dad can't do that, he cannot make progress. The instructor tells Dad that he will be reported as noncompliant unless he changes his mind.
Mom is furious. She tries to address the Star Chamber directly but instantly gets shut down because she's represented by counsel. "No, I'm not," Mom says. She goes on speaking until Judge Gruff tells her that she will be removed from the Star Chamber if she persists. Mom's attorney says nothing.
Mom and Dad have never been informed that they have a right to a contested hearing with witnesses if they want it. Their attorneys remain silent throughout the proceeding except to submit the matter on the social worker's report and Dr. Hack's evaluation.
The court orders six months of reunification services to both parents and sets a date six months away to evaluate their progress. The hearing is over in 15 minutes.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Star Chamber in America - Part 4
Dr. Harley Hack is a clinical psychologist with an impressive resume. It prints out to eight pages listing in bullet points the degrees earned, papers written, awards bestowed, and lectures delivered.
At the behest of the social worker, Dr. Hack has seen Mom twice. First to do the usual tests and then to ask questions about social and family history.
Dr. Hack sits in his den at midnight facing the computer. He pours a second shot of scotch over rocks as he warms to the task of weaving the narrative of Mom’s life to the results of the clinical tests administered in his office two days ago. Dr. Hack has prepared hundreds of these evaluations before. Cutting and pasting from previous reports on people he can barely remember, Dr. Hack can whip up a report on Mom for the Star Chamber in a couple of hours.
Dr. Hack is far more comfortable perched on Mount Olympus making judgments about parents stuck in the Star Chamber quagmire than he was as a younger doctor with a therapy practice. Back then, he mechanically passed a tissue while feigning concern for patients he didn’t care about. The patients, of course, soon realized what a fraud he truly was. After one or two sessions, most of them would let their fingers do the walking in search for a new therapist. Only the ones trapped by a court order compelling them to see Dr. Hack stayed much longer than that. Figuring there was something wrong in his style more than just the bow tie, he discovered that his talent lay in judging rather than helping.
His personal life mirrors the dysfunction that drove him away from doing therapy. He lives with his wife in a house divided. Separate bedrooms and independent lives. The marriage is held together by inertia, on life support. His grown children barely speak to him.
Dr. Hack begins his report about Mom by acknowledging that he reviewed and relied on the social worker’s twisted reports. Formulaically, he writes that "[mom] appears to be her stated age of 45, presents with appropriate affect, and is oriented in all three spheres."
In a discussion of the psychological testing results, Dr. Hack notes an elevated scale suggesting that Mom is faking good. In ordinary parlance, this means that Mom tried to impress the examiner. Although this is entirely to be expected in the case of a mother wanting her kids back, Dr. Hack chooses his words carefully to turn "faking good" into an indictment of Mom dripping with innuendo of manipulation and deceit.
Dr. Hack goes on for pages describing his conversations with Mom. He bends a few facts here and there to fit his themes. He notes that she chokes up frequently and rambles on about how horrible the Star Chamber is. She attacks the judge, the lying social worker, her inept lawyers and county counsel. Dr. Hack concludes that Mom is clinically depressed, suffers from post traumatic stress disorder brought on by the allegation against Dad and has delusional thoughts that the Star Chamber is out to get her. She is in denial about Dad’s bad behavior and a risk to the kids until she changes.
The Star Chamber will take Dr. Hack's words at face value. It will not occur to parents’ counsel that they should subpoena this guy and light a fire under his ass in cross-examination. There will be no voice to challenge the distinguished Dr. Hack.
If it occurs to Dr. Hack that Mom’s depression and PTSD might come from suddenly having cops rip away her children in the middle of the night, or the injustice of the Star Chamber in keeping them from her, or the perjury of the social worker that gave the Star Chamber the excuse it needed, or having to face this nightmare without counsel, he doesn’t mention them. He knows who writes his check. Best not to bite the hand that feeds you.
At the behest of the social worker, Dr. Hack has seen Mom twice. First to do the usual tests and then to ask questions about social and family history.
Dr. Hack sits in his den at midnight facing the computer. He pours a second shot of scotch over rocks as he warms to the task of weaving the narrative of Mom’s life to the results of the clinical tests administered in his office two days ago. Dr. Hack has prepared hundreds of these evaluations before. Cutting and pasting from previous reports on people he can barely remember, Dr. Hack can whip up a report on Mom for the Star Chamber in a couple of hours.
Dr. Hack is far more comfortable perched on Mount Olympus making judgments about parents stuck in the Star Chamber quagmire than he was as a younger doctor with a therapy practice. Back then, he mechanically passed a tissue while feigning concern for patients he didn’t care about. The patients, of course, soon realized what a fraud he truly was. After one or two sessions, most of them would let their fingers do the walking in search for a new therapist. Only the ones trapped by a court order compelling them to see Dr. Hack stayed much longer than that. Figuring there was something wrong in his style more than just the bow tie, he discovered that his talent lay in judging rather than helping.
His personal life mirrors the dysfunction that drove him away from doing therapy. He lives with his wife in a house divided. Separate bedrooms and independent lives. The marriage is held together by inertia, on life support. His grown children barely speak to him.
Dr. Hack begins his report about Mom by acknowledging that he reviewed and relied on the social worker’s twisted reports. Formulaically, he writes that "[mom] appears to be her stated age of 45, presents with appropriate affect, and is oriented in all three spheres."
In a discussion of the psychological testing results, Dr. Hack notes an elevated scale suggesting that Mom is faking good. In ordinary parlance, this means that Mom tried to impress the examiner. Although this is entirely to be expected in the case of a mother wanting her kids back, Dr. Hack chooses his words carefully to turn "faking good" into an indictment of Mom dripping with innuendo of manipulation and deceit.
Dr. Hack goes on for pages describing his conversations with Mom. He bends a few facts here and there to fit his themes. He notes that she chokes up frequently and rambles on about how horrible the Star Chamber is. She attacks the judge, the lying social worker, her inept lawyers and county counsel. Dr. Hack concludes that Mom is clinically depressed, suffers from post traumatic stress disorder brought on by the allegation against Dad and has delusional thoughts that the Star Chamber is out to get her. She is in denial about Dad’s bad behavior and a risk to the kids until she changes.
The Star Chamber will take Dr. Hack's words at face value. It will not occur to parents’ counsel that they should subpoena this guy and light a fire under his ass in cross-examination. There will be no voice to challenge the distinguished Dr. Hack.
If it occurs to Dr. Hack that Mom’s depression and PTSD might come from suddenly having cops rip away her children in the middle of the night, or the injustice of the Star Chamber in keeping them from her, or the perjury of the social worker that gave the Star Chamber the excuse it needed, or having to face this nightmare without counsel, he doesn’t mention them. He knows who writes his check. Best not to bite the hand that feeds you.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Star Chamber in America - Part 3
Mom and Dad arrive at the Star Chamber for their 1:30 P.M. hearing about something. They join the tide of humanity waiting in the hall for cases to be called. A sign posted on the door tells them to stay out until they are called. As the hours creep by, a dull stupor sets in. Occasionally they sit up alert when they catch glimpses of their lawyers popping their heads out the courtroom door. Still no sign of recognition from them. Mom and Dad sink back into semi-consciousness.
Eventually, their attorneys come out to talk to them. We have good news, they say. They tell Mom and Dad that the county is willing to amend the petition to say that Amber has made allegations of molestation against her father, that this has caused her severe emotional distress and the family needs therapy to deal with it. The attorneys propose that the parents "submit on the petition" rather than go to trial. It’s the best thing to do, say the lawyers, because the amended petition does not say that Dad actually molested Amber.
The attorneys warn that the Department almost always wins these cases and that the social worker will be unhappy if they go to trial because she will think they are persisting in denial and failing to cooperate. Besides, say the lawyers, we can get more quickly down to the business of reunifying with the children. "What about the boys?," Mom asks. They will stay where they are or go to Grandma’s house say the lawyers. The judge isn’t likely to return them befor a psych evaluation is completed.
The Honorable George Gruff will hear Mom and Dad’s case. Presiding in Department 44, he hears only juvenile dependency cases. Judge Gruff didn’t pick this assignment. He’s the new judge. As the one with least seniority he ended up here because none of the other 65 judges on the county superior court wanted the job.
Judge Gruff’s background as a deputy district attorney and then a defense attorney representing asbestos manufacturers does nothing to prepare him for handling Mom and Dad’s case. He has no experience dealing with the problems of the poor.
The people who come into his court are indeed unfortunate but this fact does not weigh in their favor because Judge Gruff has an unshakable belief that people shape their own fortunes. This belief comes cheap. Born into a legal aristocracy where men in his family have become judges since the gold rush, a judgeship was as natural a destiny for Judge Gruff as having his baby teeth fall out. He cruises into court from his home perched high in the hills to weigh the fates of people who might as well have come from Venus or Mars.
Judge Gruff’s ignorance forces him to depend on the guidance of Mom and Dad’s adversary, the county attorney who Judge Gruff sees five days a week. His honor respects social workers since they’re about protecting children and would have no motive to mislead him. He knows nothing about Title 4-E funding or social workers attracted to the job because they are control freaks with the need to project their own issues on to hapless parents. About the time Judge Gruff becomes seasoned in the job, he will leave Department 44 never to look back.
The attorneys tell Mom and Dad that Judge Gruff is tough. They are well-advised to accept the social worker’s case plan. Mom will get an evaluation and follow the recommended course of treatment. Both parents will take parenting classes. Dad will go into therapy and attend a school for sexual batterers. Amber will get individual counseling. After a while, if everything progresses well, Amber and both parents will participate in joint family counseling.
The Department will select the evaluators and therapists from a list of approved providers who depend on the Department’s continuing largesse to pay their bills. The social worker will furnish her reports to the assigned professionals for their use as background. These reports will tell them what result the Department would like to see. The parents don’t get their own independent evaluators or therapists because they have no money to buy them like the Department does.
Once inside, Judge Gruff calls the case. The attorneys who have never interviewed their clients tell the court the parents are willing to submit on the amended petition. The court asks Mom and Dad if that’s what they want to do. They respond, "yes." "Very well," says Judge Gruff who then takes waivers of the right to a trial from the parents and explains that the court will decide the case on the social worker’s report.
The court then finds the allegations of the amended petition to be true. Mother is ordered to have an evaluation. The social worker is granted discretion to place the children with grandma. The case is continued for 30 days for the results of Mom’s evaluation.
Note about players in the Star Chamber
County counsel represents the social worker and the Department. A different lawyer represents the children. This attorney almost always supports whatever the Department wants to do even if it’s not what their clients want. This disregard for the children's views is permitted in California under Welfare & Institutions Code section 317 which states that the duty of minor’s counsel is to advocate for the minor’s best interests and not for what the minor wants. Section 317 is at odds with ABA standards for minor’s counsel, adopted in most states, which require counsel to advocate for what the children want just as an attorney for an adult would be required to do.
Parents’ counsel are appointed by the court and paid by the county. Usually a small group of attorneys handle the bulk of the cases. They appear regularly in the Star Chamber. They form a collegial bond with the other players. They understand that we’re all in this together to get things done in a demanding, high volume court.
The losers in the Star Chamber are the parents and children whose rights are traded in to maintain the spirit of cooperation and efficiency.
The truth finding process is nullified. The parents and children never get heard. The social worker’s unrebutted warped narrative becomes the foundation for the court’s findings. It’s nearly impossible to undo these findings once they are made. They will continue to haunt the parents for months, even years.
My apologies to conscientious truth telling social workers and parents’ counsel who work hard for their clients and may even meet with them in their offices before trial and talk to them on the phone. Kudos for not succumbing to the excesses of the Star Chamber. There are far too few of you.
Eventually, their attorneys come out to talk to them. We have good news, they say. They tell Mom and Dad that the county is willing to amend the petition to say that Amber has made allegations of molestation against her father, that this has caused her severe emotional distress and the family needs therapy to deal with it. The attorneys propose that the parents "submit on the petition" rather than go to trial. It’s the best thing to do, say the lawyers, because the amended petition does not say that Dad actually molested Amber.
The attorneys warn that the Department almost always wins these cases and that the social worker will be unhappy if they go to trial because she will think they are persisting in denial and failing to cooperate. Besides, say the lawyers, we can get more quickly down to the business of reunifying with the children. "What about the boys?," Mom asks. They will stay where they are or go to Grandma’s house say the lawyers. The judge isn’t likely to return them befor a psych evaluation is completed.
The Honorable George Gruff will hear Mom and Dad’s case. Presiding in Department 44, he hears only juvenile dependency cases. Judge Gruff didn’t pick this assignment. He’s the new judge. As the one with least seniority he ended up here because none of the other 65 judges on the county superior court wanted the job.
Judge Gruff’s background as a deputy district attorney and then a defense attorney representing asbestos manufacturers does nothing to prepare him for handling Mom and Dad’s case. He has no experience dealing with the problems of the poor.
The people who come into his court are indeed unfortunate but this fact does not weigh in their favor because Judge Gruff has an unshakable belief that people shape their own fortunes. This belief comes cheap. Born into a legal aristocracy where men in his family have become judges since the gold rush, a judgeship was as natural a destiny for Judge Gruff as having his baby teeth fall out. He cruises into court from his home perched high in the hills to weigh the fates of people who might as well have come from Venus or Mars.
Judge Gruff’s ignorance forces him to depend on the guidance of Mom and Dad’s adversary, the county attorney who Judge Gruff sees five days a week. His honor respects social workers since they’re about protecting children and would have no motive to mislead him. He knows nothing about Title 4-E funding or social workers attracted to the job because they are control freaks with the need to project their own issues on to hapless parents. About the time Judge Gruff becomes seasoned in the job, he will leave Department 44 never to look back.
The attorneys tell Mom and Dad that Judge Gruff is tough. They are well-advised to accept the social worker’s case plan. Mom will get an evaluation and follow the recommended course of treatment. Both parents will take parenting classes. Dad will go into therapy and attend a school for sexual batterers. Amber will get individual counseling. After a while, if everything progresses well, Amber and both parents will participate in joint family counseling.
The Department will select the evaluators and therapists from a list of approved providers who depend on the Department’s continuing largesse to pay their bills. The social worker will furnish her reports to the assigned professionals for their use as background. These reports will tell them what result the Department would like to see. The parents don’t get their own independent evaluators or therapists because they have no money to buy them like the Department does.
Once inside, Judge Gruff calls the case. The attorneys who have never interviewed their clients tell the court the parents are willing to submit on the amended petition. The court asks Mom and Dad if that’s what they want to do. They respond, "yes." "Very well," says Judge Gruff who then takes waivers of the right to a trial from the parents and explains that the court will decide the case on the social worker’s report.
The court then finds the allegations of the amended petition to be true. Mother is ordered to have an evaluation. The social worker is granted discretion to place the children with grandma. The case is continued for 30 days for the results of Mom’s evaluation.
Note about players in the Star Chamber
County counsel represents the social worker and the Department. A different lawyer represents the children. This attorney almost always supports whatever the Department wants to do even if it’s not what their clients want. This disregard for the children's views is permitted in California under Welfare & Institutions Code section 317 which states that the duty of minor’s counsel is to advocate for the minor’s best interests and not for what the minor wants. Section 317 is at odds with ABA standards for minor’s counsel, adopted in most states, which require counsel to advocate for what the children want just as an attorney for an adult would be required to do.
Parents’ counsel are appointed by the court and paid by the county. Usually a small group of attorneys handle the bulk of the cases. They appear regularly in the Star Chamber. They form a collegial bond with the other players. They understand that we’re all in this together to get things done in a demanding, high volume court.
The losers in the Star Chamber are the parents and children whose rights are traded in to maintain the spirit of cooperation and efficiency.
The truth finding process is nullified. The parents and children never get heard. The social worker’s unrebutted warped narrative becomes the foundation for the court’s findings. It’s nearly impossible to undo these findings once they are made. They will continue to haunt the parents for months, even years.
My apologies to conscientious truth telling social workers and parents’ counsel who work hard for their clients and may even meet with them in their offices before trial and talk to them on the phone. Kudos for not succumbing to the excesses of the Star Chamber. There are far too few of you.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Star Chamber in America - Part 2
Mom and Dad are getting ready to return to the Star Chamber for the next phase of the case. After coming home from the last appearance, they immediately sat down at the table to figure out what this was all about. As they read, they became increasingly alarmed.
Their daughter, Amber, age 12, turned in her father for touching her inappropriately. The molest happened on a Saturday night a month before she was placed in foster care, according to Amber. Dad told her not to say anything about it. The night that she was picked up, she had left home against parental orders and gone to her best friend’s house where she revealed the molest to the friend’s mother who made the call, as Amber knew she would.
Dad remembers very well the night that his world turned upside down because there had been a showdown over Amber’s skipping school and hanging out with older boys. Dad couldn’t be sure but he suspected Amber was having sex. After finding a roach in her room, he knew she was smoking pot. For a couple of weeks, Amber steadfastly refused to do any chores or participate in family activities. She spewed hate at both parents when they tried to communicate with her. That night, Dad took away her I-pod, access to the internet, and banned her from going out for two weeks hoping her behavior would improve. These restrictions scuttled Amber’s plans to hang out. She was especially irked because Dad rescinded his OK for her to go with her best friend’s family on a weekend ski trip to Tahoe. Amber was enraged.
Mom and Dad haven’t seen Amber since she was placed in custody. That was the day before the social worker and cops stormed the house to grab the two boys.
They haven't missed a single weekly supervised visit with the boys who are five and eight. They sit around a table in a small sterile room at the Department of Social Services. While parents and children are happy to see each other, the setting is stressful and unnatural. It's even harder for them when the visit ends.
A stern lady with glasses and hair in a bun writes down everything they say and do. There are rules to follow or the visit will be terminated, she warns them. No talking about the case. No talking about when, if ever, the boys will come home. No words to lend hope to them that this nightmare will end. No crying in front of the children. The children are not to cry either. No whispering. The boys are not allowed to talk about their foster home or the new school they attend. This information might give the parents clues about where they are. Any item given to the boys must be inspected by the lady with glasses and hair in a bun. Notes or cards from the parents must be read before delivery. Any violation of these rules will be reported to the social worker who will pass it on to the Star Chamber with the social worker’s conclusion that the parents are uncooperative, sneaky and clearly not to be trusted.
The visits last one hour, usually on Tuesdays but occasionally they are abruptly canceled to serve the convenience of the Department. Sometimes the missed visits are made up and sometimes not. It’s all up to the social worker. The Star Chamber has granted the social worker discretion to set the terms. The children sometimes don’t get to the visits on time because the foster parents have to drive 80 miles each way. Although the parents have not violated any rules, the social worker refuses to expand visits, citing the Department’s scarce resources.
Even thought there’s no allegation that the boys have been neglected or abused, they were taken under the rule of the Star Chamber that if you take one child, you take them all.
Mom and Dad are very scared. They tried to make appointments with their court-appointed lawyers. They left message after message in voice mail but the lawyers never returned their calls. They’re not really sure what’s supposed to happen in court today because no one has explained the process to them. What they don’t know is that today is the day set for the hearing to decide whether the allegations made against them are true and to decide where the children will live.
The petition says that Dad molested Amber and Mom failed to protect Amber from Dad. A small sentence in the petition says the boys are at risk in the custody of their parents. Mom is characterized as mentally unstable and under Dad's control to such a degree that the children are not safe in the home.
The social worker has interviewed all of the collaterals in the case including the children’s doctors, teachers and daycare workers. The worker has also interviewed the estranged maternal grandmother who has held a long term grudge against Dad. She's sure he's a good for nothing. He certainly isn’t right for her daughter. Grandma says she’s not a bit surprised that Dad would molest Amber. Grandma is upset that the parents won’t let her have contact with the children more than once a year. The parents admit this. She's toxic, they say. The grandmother would love to have custody and the social worker has arranged to visit the grandmother's house as the first step in placing the children with her.
The social worker interviewed Amber about the details of the molest. Initially she confirmed that it happened. But after a while Amber started to crack. Eventually, she recanted her story completely. The recantation doesn’t make it into the narrative of the social worker’s report for today’s hearing because the social worker doesn't believe Amber's recantation. Recantations happen, she reasons, because children want to be with their parents, even ones who mistreat them.
The social worker has also interviewed Mom and Dad. She tells them in no uncertain terms that they need to take responsibility for their actions. She says children don’t lie about these things. If you want your children to come home, you will tell me what happened. Mom is in tears throughout the interview. The loss of her children and the cruel allegations against the father have nearly driven her over the edge. The social worker notes that Mom is so emotionally unstable and fixed in denial, that she is not capable of taking care of the children at this time. Clearly, she needs a psych evaluation with follow up treatment and possibly drugs to control her moods. She advocates for this in her report to the Star Chamber.
The social worker has talked to the boys over and over again to get them to make statements damaging to their parents. She tells them that no parent is perfect and that if they want to go home, they will have to disclose everything that is bad about their Mom and Dad.
She accuses them of lying when they stand by their story that they are well treated.
The social worker asks about the grandmother. The older boy says she’s weird and he’s not comfortable around her. She scares him. She makes everyone uncomfortable. The social worker writes this up in her report, informing the Star Chamber that the parents have caused the children emotional harm by alienating them from the grandmother who the social worker has interviewed and found to be warm, nourishing and good for the kids.
The social worker recommends that the children be declared dependents and remain in foster care for the time being while she investigates the grandmother as a suitable placement.
Their daughter, Amber, age 12, turned in her father for touching her inappropriately. The molest happened on a Saturday night a month before she was placed in foster care, according to Amber. Dad told her not to say anything about it. The night that she was picked up, she had left home against parental orders and gone to her best friend’s house where she revealed the molest to the friend’s mother who made the call, as Amber knew she would.
Dad remembers very well the night that his world turned upside down because there had been a showdown over Amber’s skipping school and hanging out with older boys. Dad couldn’t be sure but he suspected Amber was having sex. After finding a roach in her room, he knew she was smoking pot. For a couple of weeks, Amber steadfastly refused to do any chores or participate in family activities. She spewed hate at both parents when they tried to communicate with her. That night, Dad took away her I-pod, access to the internet, and banned her from going out for two weeks hoping her behavior would improve. These restrictions scuttled Amber’s plans to hang out. She was especially irked because Dad rescinded his OK for her to go with her best friend’s family on a weekend ski trip to Tahoe. Amber was enraged.
Mom and Dad haven’t seen Amber since she was placed in custody. That was the day before the social worker and cops stormed the house to grab the two boys.
They haven't missed a single weekly supervised visit with the boys who are five and eight. They sit around a table in a small sterile room at the Department of Social Services. While parents and children are happy to see each other, the setting is stressful and unnatural. It's even harder for them when the visit ends.
A stern lady with glasses and hair in a bun writes down everything they say and do. There are rules to follow or the visit will be terminated, she warns them. No talking about the case. No talking about when, if ever, the boys will come home. No words to lend hope to them that this nightmare will end. No crying in front of the children. The children are not to cry either. No whispering. The boys are not allowed to talk about their foster home or the new school they attend. This information might give the parents clues about where they are. Any item given to the boys must be inspected by the lady with glasses and hair in a bun. Notes or cards from the parents must be read before delivery. Any violation of these rules will be reported to the social worker who will pass it on to the Star Chamber with the social worker’s conclusion that the parents are uncooperative, sneaky and clearly not to be trusted.
The visits last one hour, usually on Tuesdays but occasionally they are abruptly canceled to serve the convenience of the Department. Sometimes the missed visits are made up and sometimes not. It’s all up to the social worker. The Star Chamber has granted the social worker discretion to set the terms. The children sometimes don’t get to the visits on time because the foster parents have to drive 80 miles each way. Although the parents have not violated any rules, the social worker refuses to expand visits, citing the Department’s scarce resources.
Even thought there’s no allegation that the boys have been neglected or abused, they were taken under the rule of the Star Chamber that if you take one child, you take them all.
Mom and Dad are very scared. They tried to make appointments with their court-appointed lawyers. They left message after message in voice mail but the lawyers never returned their calls. They’re not really sure what’s supposed to happen in court today because no one has explained the process to them. What they don’t know is that today is the day set for the hearing to decide whether the allegations made against them are true and to decide where the children will live.
The petition says that Dad molested Amber and Mom failed to protect Amber from Dad. A small sentence in the petition says the boys are at risk in the custody of their parents. Mom is characterized as mentally unstable and under Dad's control to such a degree that the children are not safe in the home.
The social worker has interviewed all of the collaterals in the case including the children’s doctors, teachers and daycare workers. The worker has also interviewed the estranged maternal grandmother who has held a long term grudge against Dad. She's sure he's a good for nothing. He certainly isn’t right for her daughter. Grandma says she’s not a bit surprised that Dad would molest Amber. Grandma is upset that the parents won’t let her have contact with the children more than once a year. The parents admit this. She's toxic, they say. The grandmother would love to have custody and the social worker has arranged to visit the grandmother's house as the first step in placing the children with her.
The social worker interviewed Amber about the details of the molest. Initially she confirmed that it happened. But after a while Amber started to crack. Eventually, she recanted her story completely. The recantation doesn’t make it into the narrative of the social worker’s report for today’s hearing because the social worker doesn't believe Amber's recantation. Recantations happen, she reasons, because children want to be with their parents, even ones who mistreat them.
The social worker has also interviewed Mom and Dad. She tells them in no uncertain terms that they need to take responsibility for their actions. She says children don’t lie about these things. If you want your children to come home, you will tell me what happened. Mom is in tears throughout the interview. The loss of her children and the cruel allegations against the father have nearly driven her over the edge. The social worker notes that Mom is so emotionally unstable and fixed in denial, that she is not capable of taking care of the children at this time. Clearly, she needs a psych evaluation with follow up treatment and possibly drugs to control her moods. She advocates for this in her report to the Star Chamber.
The social worker has talked to the boys over and over again to get them to make statements damaging to their parents. She tells them that no parent is perfect and that if they want to go home, they will have to disclose everything that is bad about their Mom and Dad.
She accuses them of lying when they stand by their story that they are well treated.
The social worker asks about the grandmother. The older boy says she’s weird and he’s not comfortable around her. She scares him. She makes everyone uncomfortable. The social worker writes this up in her report, informing the Star Chamber that the parents have caused the children emotional harm by alienating them from the grandmother who the social worker has interviewed and found to be warm, nourishing and good for the kids.
The social worker recommends that the children be declared dependents and remain in foster care for the time being while she investigates the grandmother as a suitable placement.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Star Chamber in America - Part 1
The star chamber was a court in England for the trial of prominent people whom the monarchy believed would not be convicted by common jurors. The court sessions were held in secret with no indictments, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. There was no appeal. Parliament abolished the infamous star chamber in 1640.
For the most part, our system prohibits the worst excesses of the star chamber. Provisions in our constitution secure the right to a public jury trial, the right to confront our accusers through cross examination, and the right against self-incrimination. The right to appeal is guaranteed generally by statute.
Having mentioned the star chamber, you’ve probably figured out that I’m going to talk about the military tribunals at Guantanamo where inmates sit for years not knowing what charges or evidence landed them there. But I’m not going to talk about that. I’m going to discuss a different court system that touches many more lives than the few hundred at Guantanamo. It's a system that exists in every county in the United States and it’s called the juvenile dependency court. This is the court where parents go when their children have been taken away based on allegations of parental abuse or neglect.
The juvenile dependency system shares many hallmarks of the star chamber. The allegations are usually drafted in a vague manner subject to revision at any time as opportunity arises. Defending against fluid allegations that may be radically altered at the whim of the court, the parents are forced to deal with a moving target. The proceedings are secret. There is no jury. The entire case can be disposed of by submission on a social worker’s report largely consisting of hearsay. The families have a huge stake in the outcome because it may mean termination of parent-child relationships and transitioning of children into permanent adoptive homes. If the children are very young, the parents have only six months to reunite with them before a permanent plan is made for adoption.
Most of the parents sucked into the system are poor. Living constantly on the edge of financial ruin, they must meet the system’s demand for their time to deal with the disaster that now confronts them. The state has taken the first step to sever the relationship between these parents and their children.
The federal government funds the system through Title 4-E of the Social Security Act. The law rewards state and local governments for each child placed in foster care. The sky is the limit. Only a small fraction of this money ends in the hands of the foster parents. The rest is used to hire more social workers to get out and grab more kids. The feds will pay a bonus for each child successfully placed for adoption. If the child has special needs, the feds will supplement the money. These monetary incentives favoring permanent removal of children infect the bureaucratic culture in such a way that children are often removed for the flimsiest and most trivial of reasons.
The first step in the process is the detention hearing where the court will decide if the children will be kept in foster care until a trial is held. Most of the time they already are in custody having been removed from their homes by a social worker and/or the police. There’s a high probability that the removal was effected illegally because the children were taken without a warrant when they were not in danger. Frequently, the social worker accompanied by armed police officers who know nothing about the case barge into the house without consent. The juvenile court does not care about that.
We will talk about a hypothetical case involving Mom, Dad, their daughter, Amber and two sons. The children were removed and currently reside in foster care. The court will hold a hearing today to determine where they will live until the case is decided. A petition has been filed alleging that Mom and Dad have abused and neglected the children.
The detention hearing (item 26 on the court's afternoon calendar) will likely be over in less than 10 minutes. Mom and Dad have had no time to prepare for it. They were just handed a slew of documents at the door and won’t be able to look at it until they get home. It’s equally likely that their newly appointed attorneys haven’t read it either before they utter the only ten words they'll say during the hearing: "your honor, we'll submit on the social worker's detention report."
The children are detained. Mom and Dad are grieving. The only salve offered by their new lawyers is, "don't worry, we'll have a chance to talk about this later." In a few weeks or months depending on how busy the court is, there will be a trial or as it's known in juvenile court lingo, an adjudication hearing.
For the most part, our system prohibits the worst excesses of the star chamber. Provisions in our constitution secure the right to a public jury trial, the right to confront our accusers through cross examination, and the right against self-incrimination. The right to appeal is guaranteed generally by statute.
Having mentioned the star chamber, you’ve probably figured out that I’m going to talk about the military tribunals at Guantanamo where inmates sit for years not knowing what charges or evidence landed them there. But I’m not going to talk about that. I’m going to discuss a different court system that touches many more lives than the few hundred at Guantanamo. It's a system that exists in every county in the United States and it’s called the juvenile dependency court. This is the court where parents go when their children have been taken away based on allegations of parental abuse or neglect.
The juvenile dependency system shares many hallmarks of the star chamber. The allegations are usually drafted in a vague manner subject to revision at any time as opportunity arises. Defending against fluid allegations that may be radically altered at the whim of the court, the parents are forced to deal with a moving target. The proceedings are secret. There is no jury. The entire case can be disposed of by submission on a social worker’s report largely consisting of hearsay. The families have a huge stake in the outcome because it may mean termination of parent-child relationships and transitioning of children into permanent adoptive homes. If the children are very young, the parents have only six months to reunite with them before a permanent plan is made for adoption.
Most of the parents sucked into the system are poor. Living constantly on the edge of financial ruin, they must meet the system’s demand for their time to deal with the disaster that now confronts them. The state has taken the first step to sever the relationship between these parents and their children.
The federal government funds the system through Title 4-E of the Social Security Act. The law rewards state and local governments for each child placed in foster care. The sky is the limit. Only a small fraction of this money ends in the hands of the foster parents. The rest is used to hire more social workers to get out and grab more kids. The feds will pay a bonus for each child successfully placed for adoption. If the child has special needs, the feds will supplement the money. These monetary incentives favoring permanent removal of children infect the bureaucratic culture in such a way that children are often removed for the flimsiest and most trivial of reasons.
The first step in the process is the detention hearing where the court will decide if the children will be kept in foster care until a trial is held. Most of the time they already are in custody having been removed from their homes by a social worker and/or the police. There’s a high probability that the removal was effected illegally because the children were taken without a warrant when they were not in danger. Frequently, the social worker accompanied by armed police officers who know nothing about the case barge into the house without consent. The juvenile court does not care about that.
We will talk about a hypothetical case involving Mom, Dad, their daughter, Amber and two sons. The children were removed and currently reside in foster care. The court will hold a hearing today to determine where they will live until the case is decided. A petition has been filed alleging that Mom and Dad have abused and neglected the children.
The detention hearing (item 26 on the court's afternoon calendar) will likely be over in less than 10 minutes. Mom and Dad have had no time to prepare for it. They were just handed a slew of documents at the door and won’t be able to look at it until they get home. It’s equally likely that their newly appointed attorneys haven’t read it either before they utter the only ten words they'll say during the hearing: "your honor, we'll submit on the social worker's detention report."
The children are detained. Mom and Dad are grieving. The only salve offered by their new lawyers is, "don't worry, we'll have a chance to talk about this later." In a few weeks or months depending on how busy the court is, there will be a trial or as it's known in juvenile court lingo, an adjudication hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
