If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary
August 5, 2004 By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer A state social worker deliberately distorted the facts in a case of suspected child abuse to remove a 4-year-old girl from her family, a state judge has found. In a case that critics say affirms their worst fears about the state's child-protection system, Judge Carmen L. Lopez found that the worker, in an attempt to build a stronger case for abuse, ignored prior findings that the girl could have broken her collarbone in an accident. The girl was removed from her home for two weeks in May 2003, when the state Department of Children and Families was gaining custody of record numbers of children after the high-profile beating death of a Hartford boy whose well-being was being monitored by DCF. The case revealed "an appalling combination of arrogance and ineptitude" by DCF that unnecessarily traumatized a girl who was removed from her family, Lopez wrote in a harshly worded ruling. Lopez, a veteran child-protection judge, considered holding DCF in contempt of court. Instead, she ordered the agency, when applying for temporary custody of children in state court, to include information that may be favorable to a parent's or guardian's defense. "The overriding concern for family integrity demands nothing less," Lopez wrote in the ruling, issued out of the child protection session of Middletown Juvenile Court. She advised DCF to remind its workers about the punishments for perjury. Gary Kleeblatt, a DCF spokesman, said the agency has ordered its workers to comply with Lopez's ruling. "We recognize that it's important for our affidavits to disclose all of the relevant facts, including those that support the parent's position," Kleeblatt said. "The policy prior to this did not make that request of the social worker." Kleeblatt said DCF social workers always act in the child's best interest and only go to court when it is absolutely necessary to protect a child. Advocates for children and families, however, praised Lopez's willingness to question DCF's fact-finding and to acknowledge the emotional trauma to children swept up in "defensive social work." They say the case highlights the need to open the state's juvenile courts to the public in order to hold DCF accountable. Legislation proposed last year to do just that died in committee, but it will probably be resurrected when the legislature convenes in January. "This is not the first time a judge has found that DCF personnel committed egregious misconduct, if not outright perjury, in an effort to obtain temporary custody of a child," said attorney Paul Chill, associate dean of academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "This case is only the tip of the iceberg," said Chill, who is director of the law school's child protection appeals clinic. "Virtually every lawyer who regularly practices in juvenile court will tell you that they have seen much worse." Fracture Reported The case of Lindsey P., as she is known in court records, began on March 18, 2003, when a pediatrician in Bloomfield called DCF's abuse hot line, stating that Lindsey had a fractured right clavicle and the girl had said it was from her father "throwing her." The doctor, who was mandated by state law to report suspected child abuse, went on to say that this type of fracture was common and not necessarily a sign of abuse because "it can occur if a child falls out of bed." The child protection agency opened an investigation and contacted police. Police investigators interviewed Lindsey and her father and determined that on March 17, Lindsey spilled a drink and her father became angry and grabbed her by the left wrist, pushing her away. Lindsey's father said she fell on the floor. Lindsey said her father "threw her." Police determined that the injury was accidental and no charges were filed, but the DCF investigator assigned to the case, Beverly Bosse, filed a report citing Lindsey's father for abuse and neglect. As a result, the girl's father was required to undergo anger management counseling, make sure his daughter makes all her medical appointments, and refrain from physical punishment when disciplining his daughter. Lindsey was allowed to remain in her home. Court records show that Lindsey's mother has debilitating medical and emotional problems and has not been Lindsey's custodial parent since Lindsey was 18 months old. Although Lindsey's mother was not involved in this case, she retains joint legal custody of Lindsey. The Al-Lex Case On April 2, 2003, DCF's child abuse investigations unit transferred the case to a treatment worker, Christina Wagner-Morella, who was responsible for ensuring that Lindsey's father complied with the agency's demands pending closure of the case. Court records show the Wagner-Morella expressed no concerns about Lindsey's safety during several routine court appearances. Then, on May 29, 2003, little more than two weeks after 10-month-old Al-Lex Daniels was beaten to death, allegedly by his mother's live-in boyfriend in Hartford, Wagner-Morella filed for temporary custody of Lindsey in Superior Court. DCF had been monitoring Al-Lex's family at the time of his death and was widely criticized for failing to protect the child despite repeated warnings from relatives that he was in danger. In Lindsey's case, the worker sought custody based on Lindsey's collarbone injury and said Lindsey needed to be removed from her home because her safety was in jeopardy. Wagner-Morella, in a sworn affidavit, stated that Lindsey's father had a "history of beating his children" when he lived in Massachusetts and implied that DCF's child abuse expert, Dr. Frederick Berrien, had determined that Lindsey's broken clavicle was "consistent with father throwing said child into wall." The affidavit did not mention the police department's findings that the injury was accidental or statements to that effect from Lindsey's pediatrician. Based on the affidavit, another judge, Patricia Harleston, granted the state custody that day. Lindsey was removed for two weeks and placed in temporary foster care. Father Fought Back It was not until after Lindsey's father started fighting to get her back and took DCF to court, that gaping holes in the state's case were exposed. In a hearing before Lopez on June 12, 2003, it was learned that Berrien never examined Lindsey and never said the injury was consistent with the child being thrown. Berrien testified that he only reviewed Lindsey's medical reports and actually had found that the "incident appeared accidental." His report had only mentioned the child's possibly being thrown into the wall as part of the case history and the original complaint made by Lindsey's doctor. Berrien testified that his report recommended that Lindsey's father take parenting classes that would teach him appropriate responses to his child's behavior. It was also not learned until later that Lindsey's father's reported "history" in Massachusetts was limited to a time he was drinking and had left the children alone. There was no allegation of abuse except for one unsupported statement that had been made by his ex-wife. Lopez noted that Lindsey's father had told DCF he has been sober for eight years. Under questioning by an attorney for Lindsey's father at the June hearing, Wagner-Morella said her omission of the police report was "unintentional." She also said that she did not know why she failed to mention Lindsey's pediatrician's statement or Berrien's conclusion that the injury could be accidental. The worker testified that she was given just three hours to complete the affidavit and that it was approved by her immediate supervisor, another DCF administrator and one of the agency's lawyers. Excuses Rejected Lopez, the judge, didn't buy the worker's excuse. "The social worker's protestations of ignorance lack credibility," Lopez wrote. "There is no other purpose for this affidavit other than to mislead the court into believing that Lindsey was in immediate physical danger from her surroundings and only her immediate physical removal ... would ensure her safety. The court finds that DCF intended to manipulate the facts to obtain an order that it knew the facts could not justify." Lopez repeatedly noted that the timing of the request was unusual in that the injury that formed the basis for the removal was more than two months old. The request came at a time when applications for temporary custody were soaring after Al-Lex's death, especially after then-Gov. John G. Rowland urged DCF workers to "err on the side of safety" in investigating possible child abuse. Furthermore, Lopez said, though no evidence could support a claim that the caseworker bowed to political pressure in forcing Lindsey's removal, she wouldn't rule it out. "Although the court does not discount the possibility that administrative pressures prompted the filing of the [order of temporary custody] more than two months after the incident, the evidence presented to this court is insufficient to support that finding," Lopez wrote. Kleeblatt, DCF's spokesman, denied that children were removed in large numbers after Al-Lex's death because of political pressures and criticism in the media. Wagner-Morella was not disciplined, Kleeblatt said, because she did not violate any policies that existed at the time. Wagner-Morella could not be reached for comment Wednesday. "The workers' actions are motivated by what they think is best for a particular child," Kleeblatt said. "The information is based on what they know about the facts as they exist [in a particular case], rather than other outside circumstances that surround that." Child Returned As a result of Lopez's findings, Lindsey was returned to her family on June 12, 2003. The Courant recently obtained a copy Lopez's confidential ruling, which was issued March 10. Legal advocates like Chill say the Lindsey P. case exposes serious flaws in the system. Chill said applications for temporary custody are filed by the state without the requirement that parents or their lawyers be present. Judges must base their decision on removals solely on DCF's report on the facts. There is no hearing, no testimony, no chance for the parents to present their side. "It is therefore especially important that the applications be fair and accurate," said Chill, who has extensively researched the effect of child removals on families and written articles about the issue for national journals. Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Virginia, said the case shows the power that state child protection workers wield, often unchecked. There is no standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" before a child is taken, said Wexler, who monitors child protection actions nationally as part of his advocacy. "There are no search warrants. There are no public trials. Power plus secrecy inevitably equals arrogance," Wexler said. `Defensive Social Work' The importance of temporary custody orders should not be underestimated, Chill said. Once a child is taken by the state, it takes a tremendous struggle to persuade a judge to return the child to his or her home. "It is a fallacy to think that the judicial system `corrects' most mistakes resulting from DCF over-reaching on temporary custody applications," Chill said. "A variety of forces converge to make it very difficult for the parents to get the child returned, leading to lengthy and traumatic separations and ultimately, in some cases, the complete termination of parental rights," Chill said. "So this kind of front-end misconduct by DCF can have incredibly damaging long-term effects, even beyond the severe trauma caused by the removal itself." Chill worries that the "defensive social work" seen in Lindsey P.'s case is becoming the norm at DCF and is being encouraged as a matter of policy. "DCF employees, from caseworkers on up the line, live in dread of the repercussions they will face if they fail to remove a child who subsequently is killed or maimed because of abuse or neglect," he said. "While this fear may be understandable, it is a lousy way to run a child protection system." http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-d...eadlines-local Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary
On 06 Aug 2004 18:15:49 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
Thanks, Wex. Very informative article from Connecticut and DCF. Yep. Like the word "PERJURY" uttered by the Judge. Yep. CPS has been oftentimes accused of violating family's rights in just such a perjurious, lying manner. "oftentimes accused." Is that like oft times NOT found guilty of such behavior? And the families often times do not know what is occurring. Yep...I'd say rather a lot of CPS families are non-compos. And as I recall CPS is not mandated to provide that information. Even good families. Oh, so then can we expect a delightfully more honest cleaning up of your usage of English...in that you are much more careful of how you define the "victims" of CPS failures? Could it be I'm getting through to you and you are starting to pay attention to what you post? Boy, that'll be a record day. Kane descriptors; APLANT SPEAKS NONSENSE AS USUAL Wex found: Subject: Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary From: wexwimpy Date: 8/5/2004 11:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary August 5, 2004 By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer A state social worker deliberately distorted the facts in a case of suspected child abuse to remove a 4-year-old girl from her family, a state judge has found. In a case that critics say affirms their worst fears about the state's child-protection system, Judge Carmen L. Lopez found that the worker, in an attempt to build a stronger case for abuse, ignored prior findings that the girl could have broken her collarbone in an accident. The girl was removed from her home for two weeks in May 2003, when the state Department of Children and Families was gaining custody of record numbers of children after the high-profile beating death of a Hartford boy whose well-being was being monitored by DCF. The case revealed "an appalling combination of arrogance and ineptitude" by DCF that unnecessarily traumatized a girl who was removed from her family, Lopez wrote in a harshly worded ruling. Lopez, a veteran child-protection judge, considered holding DCF in contempt of court. Instead, she ordered the agency, when applying for temporary custody of children in state court, to include information that may be favorable to a parent's or guardian's defense. "The overriding concern for family integrity demands nothing less," Lopez wrote in the ruling, issued out of the child protection session of Middletown Juvenile Court. She advised DCF to remind its workers about the punishments for perjury. Gary Kleeblatt, a DCF spokesman, said the agency has ordered its workers to comply with Lopez's ruling. "We recognize that it's important for our affidavits to disclose all of the relevant facts, including those that support the parent's position," Kleeblatt said. "The policy prior to this did not make that request of the social worker." Kleeblatt said DCF social workers always act in the child's best interest and only go to court when it is absolutely necessary to protect a child. Advocates for children and families, however, praised Lopez's willingness to question DCF's fact-finding and to acknowledge the emotional trauma to children swept up in "defensive social work." They say the case highlights the need to open the state's juvenile courts to the public in order to hold DCF accountable. Legislation proposed last year to do just that died in committee, but it will probably be resurrected when the legislature convenes in January. "This is not the first time a judge has found that DCF personnel committed egregious misconduct, if not outright perjury, in an effort to obtain temporary custody of a child," said attorney Paul Chill, associate dean of academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "This case is only the tip of the iceberg," said Chill, who is director of the law school's child protection appeals clinic. "Virtually every lawyer who regularly practices in juvenile court will tell you that they have seen much worse." Fracture Reported The case of Lindsey P., as she is known in court records, began on March 18, 2003, when a pediatrician in Bloomfield called DCF's abuse hot line, stating that Lindsey had a fractured right clavicle and the girl had said it was from her father "throwing her." The doctor, who was mandated by state law to report suspected child abuse, went on to say that this type of fracture was common and not necessarily a sign of abuse because "it can occur if a child falls out of bed." The child protection agency opened an investigation and contacted police. Police investigators interviewed Lindsey and her father and determined that on March 17, Lindsey spilled a drink and her father became angry and grabbed her by the left wrist, pushing her away. Lindsey's father said she fell on the floor. Lindsey said her father "threw her." Police determined that the injury was accidental and no charges were filed, but the DCF investigator assigned to the case, Beverly Bosse, filed a report citing Lindsey's father for abuse and neglect. As a result, the girl's father was required to undergo anger management counseling, make sure his daughter makes all her medical appointments, and refrain from physical punishment when disciplining his daughter. Lindsey was allowed to remain in her home. Court records show that Lindsey's mother has debilitating medical and emotional problems and has not been Lindsey's custodial parent since Lindsey was 18 months old. Although Lindsey's mother was not involved in this case, she retains joint legal custody of Lindsey. The Al-Lex Case On April 2, 2003, DCF's child abuse investigations unit transferred the case to a treatment worker, Christina Wagner-Morella, who was responsible for ensuring that Lindsey's father complied with the agency's demands pending closure of the case. Court records show the Wagner-Morella expressed no concerns about Lindsey's safety during several routine court appearances. Then, on May 29, 2003, little more than two weeks after 10-month-old Al-Lex Daniels was beaten to death, allegedly by his mother's live-in boyfriend in Hartford, Wagner-Morella filed for temporary custody of Lindsey in Superior Court. DCF had been monitoring Al-Lex's family at the time of his death and was widely criticized for failing to protect the child despite repeated warnings from relatives that he was in danger. In Lindsey's case, the worker sought custody based on Lindsey's collarbone injury and said Lindsey needed to be removed from her home because her safety was in jeopardy. Wagner-Morella, in a sworn affidavit, stated that Lindsey's father had a "history of beating his children" when he lived in Massachusetts and implied that DCF's child abuse expert, Dr. Frederick Berrien, had determined that Lindsey's broken clavicle was "consistent with father throwing said child into wall." The affidavit did not mention the police department's findings that the injury was accidental or statements to that effect from Lindsey's pediatrician. Based on the affidavit, another judge, Patricia Harleston, granted the state custody that day. Lindsey was removed for two weeks and placed in temporary foster care. Father Fought Back It was not until after Lindsey's father started fighting to get her back and took DCF to court, that gaping holes in the state's case were exposed. In a hearing before Lopez on June 12, 2003, it was learned that Berrien never examined Lindsey and never said the injury was consistent with the child being thrown. Berrien testified that he only reviewed Lindsey's medical reports and actually had found that the "incident appeared accidental." His report had only mentioned the child's possibly being thrown into the wall as part of the case history and the original complaint made by Lindsey's doctor. Berrien testified that his report recommended that Lindsey's father take parenting classes that would teach him appropriate responses to his child's behavior. It was also not learned until later that Lindsey's father's reported "history" in Massachusetts was limited to a time he was drinking and had left the children alone. There was no allegation of abuse except for one unsupported statement that had been made by his ex-wife. Lopez noted that Lindsey's father had told DCF he has been sober for eight years. Under questioning by an attorney for Lindsey's father at the June hearing, Wagner-Morella said her omission of the police report was "unintentional." She also said that she did not know why she failed to mention Lindsey's pediatrician's statement or Berrien's conclusion that the injury could be accidental. The worker testified that she was given just three hours to complete the affidavit and that it was approved by her immediate supervisor, another DCF administrator and one of the agency's lawyers. Excuses Rejected Lopez, the judge, didn't buy the worker's excuse. "The social worker's protestations of ignorance lack credibility," Lopez wrote. "There is no other purpose for this affidavit other than to mislead the court into believing that Lindsey was in immediate physical danger from her surroundings and only her immediate physical removal ... would ensure her safety. The court finds that DCF intended to manipulate the facts to obtain an order that it knew the facts could not justify." Lopez repeatedly noted that the timing of the request was unusual in that the injury that formed the basis for the removal was more than two months old. The request came at a time when applications for temporary custody were soaring after Al-Lex's death, especially after then-Gov. John G. Rowland urged DCF workers to "err on the side of safety" in investigating possible child abuse. Furthermore, Lopez said, though no evidence could support a claim that the caseworker bowed to political pressure in forcing Lindsey's removal, she wouldn't rule it out. "Although the court does not discount the possibility that administrative pressures prompted the filing of the [order of temporary custody] more than two months after the incident, the evidence presented to this court is insufficient to support that finding," Lopez wrote. Kleeblatt, DCF's spokesman, denied that children were removed in large numbers after Al-Lex's death because of political pressures and criticism in the media. Wagner-Morella was not disciplined, Kleeblatt said, because she did not violate any policies that existed at the time. Wagner-Morella could not be reached for comment Wednesday. "The workers' actions are motivated by what they think is best for a particular child," Kleeblatt said. "The information is based on what they know about the facts as they exist [in a particular case], rather than other outside circumstances that surround that." Child Returned As a result of Lopez's findings, Lindsey was returned to her family on June 12, 2003. The Courant recently obtained a copy Lopez's confidential ruling, which was issued March 10. Legal advocates like Chill say the Lindsey P. case exposes serious flaws in the system. Chill said applications for temporary custody are filed by the state without the requirement that parents or their lawyers be present. Judges must base their decision on removals solely on DCF's report on the facts. There is no hearing, no testimony, no chance for the parents to present their side. "It is therefore especially important that the applications be fair and accurate," said Chill, who has extensively researched the effect of child removals on families and written articles about the issue for national journals. Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Virginia, said the case shows the power that state child protection workers wield, often unchecked. There is no standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" before a child is taken, said Wexler, who monitors child protection actions nationally as part of his advocacy. "There are no search warrants. There are no public trials. Power plus secrecy inevitably equals arrogance," Wexler said. `Defensive Social Work' The importance of temporary custody orders should not be underestimated, Chill said. Once a child is taken by the state, it takes a tremendous struggle to persuade a judge to return the child to his or her home. "It is a fallacy to think that the judicial system `corrects' most mistakes resulting from DCF over-reaching on temporary custody applications," Chill said. "A variety of forces converge to make it very difficult for the parents to get the child returned, leading to lengthy and traumatic separations and ultimately, in some cases, the complete termination of parental rights," Chill said. "So this kind of front-end misconduct by DCF can have incredibly damaging long-term effects, even beyond the severe trauma caused by the removal itself." Chill worries that the "defensive social work" seen in Lindsey P.'s case is becoming the norm at DCF and is being encouraged as a matter of policy. "DCF employees, from caseworkers on up the line, live in dread of the repercussions they will face if they fail to remove a child who subsequently is killed or maimed because of abuse or neglect," he said. "While this fear may be understandable, it is a lousy way to run a child protection system." http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-d...677889.story?c oll=hc-headlines-local Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DCF wrkrs & perjury Judge writes DCF wrong. U trust them? | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | August 6th 04 03:04 PM |
A Plant's Motivation? | Kane | Spanking | 44 | October 16th 03 01:51 PM |
A Plant's Motivation? | Kane | Foster Parents | 46 | October 16th 03 01:51 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |