Court deems mother fit to care for 4-year-old daughter: "Parentsare entitled to have their children unless they are unfit," said DeputyPublic Defender Beatrix Shear

Court deems mother fit to care for 4-year-old daughter
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
BY TOM HESTER
Star-Ledger Staff

The state Supreme Court yesterday ordered a 4-year-old girl reunited
with her mother, ruling unanimously that the woman's refusal to believe
her husband could have shaken their other child to death does not mean
she is an unfit mother.

But the high court emphasized that the father, who has served three
years of a nine-year sentence for child endangerment and is now eligible
for parole, cannot live with his wife and daughter and can only have
supervised visits with the child.

The court held the girl should never have been removed from her mother's
care. "So long as (the woman) was an able mother -- and no proof was
offered to suggest otherwise -- and conducted herself in a way that
secured (her daughter's) safety -- and she did so at every turn," the
court said, she should not have lost her parental rights.

"Parents are entitled to have their children unless they are unfit,"
said Deputy Public Defender Beatrix Shear, who represented the woman.
"She did not harm the child in any way. She was not unfit in any way. We
don't terminate a birth parent's rights to their child just to vindicate
a previous mistake."

The case goes back to 2002 when the woman's husband was arrested and
accused of shaking their infant son to death while the mother was not at
home. The woman maintained her husband was guilty only of failing to
call 911 when the infant stopped breathing. A jury cleared him of
manslaughter, but found him guilty of child endangerment.

Yesterday's decision used pseudonyms for the parents and the children,
in order to protect the privacy of the girl. It described the mother as
an accountant with a full-time job in New York and ac tive in her church
who lives with an older son from a previous relation ship.

The daughter was conceived while the husband was awaiting trial. Fearing
for her safety, the state Division of Youth and Family Services in 2003
placed the child with the mother's relatives, where she has remained.
The mother has been allowed visitation and has cooperated with DYFS
demands, according to the court ruling.

At one point DYFS proposed reuniting the woman with her daughter, but in
September 2005 Superior Court Judge Jo-Anne Spatola in Union County
terminated the mother's parental rights. The judge said she was
concerned the child would be at risk because the mother was unwilling or
unable to sever her ties with her husband. In addition, the judge found
the separation had led to a thin bond between the woman and child.

Shear, the attorney representing the mother, argued DYFS failed to prove
that termination of parental rights was in the interest of the girl;
that Spatola erred in holding the husband's conviction against the
woman; and that the judge should have focused on the woman's capacity to
care for the girl instead of the facts surrounding her husband's conviction.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said the "heart of the issue" was the
woman's refusal to condemn her husband for the death of their son.
"Instead, and despite the au topsy report and the jury verdict, she
insisted that his crime was failing to call for help. Although that
stance was unrealistic and a tacti cal error, it did not justify the
loss of her parental rights."

The court went on to say that the judge in the case had based her
decision on the idea that the couple's continuing relationship was a
threat to the child.

"We disagree," the ruling said. "That threat is based on speculation and
not on clear and convincing evidence. The judge simply presumed (the
mother) could not keep (the girl) safe. As we have said, presumptions
have no place in a termination analysis."

The case is the second since February in which the Supreme Court weighed
whether to sever the rights of a parent accused of failing to protect a
child from po tential harm from a spouse. In the first case, the court
terminated the right of a Morris County father to raise his 4-year-old
special-needs son because they would have lived with the boy's alcoholic
and mentally handicapped mother.

Last year, DYFS filed 1,029 court complaints to terminate parental rights.



CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...