2001 New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago

From the bottom of main article:
New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago (1996?),
and one-time critics now support sunshine in the court.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...ourt0923p8.asp

The trend toward opening juvenile court is now gaining momentum

Sunday, September 23, 2001

By Barbara White Stack, Post-Gazette Staff Writer ( Pittsburgh, PA )

In a secret hearing three years ago, a Beaver County judge terminated
the custody rights of a 19-year-old Allegheny County woman so that her
baby could be adopted by a pharmacist and his wife, a lawyer who had
shared a law office with the judge's wife.

The young mother objected to the secrecy. She wanted the whole world to
know what had happened -- that her baby had been given away without her
consent to a couple who refused to return him.

Her attorney, Jean Lupariello of Carnegie, knew juvenile court hearings
were closed in Pennsylvania, and she'd simply accepted it. But she
began to question the practice.

"There is no reason to hide things under a shadow," Lupariello says
now.

Lupariello is among those in Pennsylvania who want to pry open the
doors to juvenile courts. If they succeed, Pennsylvania would be in the
forefront of a nationwide movement toward open juvenile court hearings.

Over the past 20 years, states have begun opening juvenile courts, and
over the next 20, the trend is likely to continue. That's because
constitutional protections and changes in federal legislation may make
it increasingly difficult for any state to keep the public out.

As a result of laws passed in the 1990s, virtually every state now
permits the public into trials for juveniles charged with serious
crimes. Victims of those crimes, some of whom were denied access to the
trials or sentencing of the youths who hurt them, were among those who
pushed to open the hearings.

Now states are beginning to unseal the doors to the other side of
juvenile court -- the hearings at which judges determine whether to
remove children from parents accused of abuse or neglect. Twelve states
now routinely admit the press or public to such hearings.

Oregon was among the first, opening the doors to all delinquency and
abuse hearings in 1980. Eight years later, Michigan followed, then New
York four years ago.

Proponents of open abuse and neglect proceedings find themselves in an
underdog position, arguing not just against tradition but also the
first-blush perception that the bloody laundry of abusive parents
shouldn't be aired in public.

Still, they've begun to convert policy makers with their contention
that closed hearings are dangerous in a democracy and that the primary
beneficiaries of secrecy are child welfare agencies whose actions and
inactions are shielded from public scrutiny.

Florida legislators were persuaded by those arguments in 1994 and
opened all hearings except those for termination of custody. Minnesota
opened abuse and neglect hearings in 12 counties in a three-year
experiment in 1998. The following year, officials in Alaska recommended
open hearings. Within the past year, Arizona, Maine and Kansas began
researching opening hearings in abuse and neglect cases. A bill that
would open hearings at the request of parents is before the legislature
in Washington.

In Maryland, some judges let the public in; others don't. The same is
true in Ohio, where doors were partially opened by challenges to the
law closing hearings.


Lawsuits similar to those in Ohio could hasten the pace of states
opening abuse and neglect deliberations. A Florida couple has asked the
U.S. Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional closed
termination of custody hearings.

In addition, court challenges are possible in states with constitutions
guaranteeing open hearings. Twenty-two states that routinely close
abuse and neglect hearings, including Pennsylvania, grant
constitutional protection against secret tribunals. The hearings in
Oregon were opened after just such a challenge.

When Amanda Kolle, the young mother whose custody rights were
terminated in that secret Beaver County hearing, learned of
Pennsylvania's constitutional guarantee, which simply states, "All
courts shall be open," she wondered how in the world the proceedings
against her were closed. "They should be open. It says they should be
open. It is plain English. I do not know why they are not."

Shielding one side

Long before Beaver County Judge Robert C. Reed terminated Kolle's
parental rights, she tried to find out who had her baby so she could
try to get him back. The way she saw it, her baby, whom she'd left in
the care of a family friend while she sought treatment for depression,
had been kidnapped.

When Kolle's attorney got hold of court records naming the couple who
had the child, Reed clearly was unhappy that she had information he
considered privileged. That set up the classic debate over secrecy.
Opponents of secrecy contend that closed-door hearings can protect
inept and corrupt judges, lawyers and child welfare officials. Kolle
believes that she ultimately won her child back partly because she went
to the very open court of public opinion with her case.

Supporters of secrecy believe it protects children such as Kolle's son
from unwarranted and damaging publicity. Because Kolle took the case
public, they contend, her son will never escape a past that includes
his name and picture plastered on newspaper pages and television
screens. They believe Kolle had no right to put him in that position.

Among the foremost proponents of secrecy is Esther Wattenberg, director
of the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the University
of Minnesota. Wattenberg, who has taught social work for more than
three decades, bitterly protested Minnesota's open hearing experiment.

About the author . . .
Barbara White Stack, 46, is a reporter who focuses on child welfare and
delinquency.

A native of Bucks County and a graduate of Penn State University, Stack
joined the Post-Gazette in 1979. Her most recent project was "Is This
Justice?" a spring 2001 series about flaws in Pennsylvania's law
sending more teens to criminal court and prison instead of juvenile
court and reform school. Research for "Open Justice" was aided by a
grant from the University of Maryland's Journalism Fellowships in Child
and Family Policy. Stack can be reached at

She believes that parents accused of abuse or neglect and their child
victims have an absolute right to privacy. Permitting the public into
hearings where intimate details of their lives are discussed, including
psychological evaluations and drug test results, violates that right,
she contends. She fears careless reporters will sensationalize family
secrets and prying neighbors will spread cruel gossip.

In addition, she says, unlocking the doors would lay bare the private
lives of the poor who populate juvenile courthouses. Middle class
families would escape such exposure because the support systems they
can afford mean they are rarely seen in juvenile court, Wattenberg
says.

Among her philosophical companions is Dr. Bennett L. Leventhal,
professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
His voice rises in anger when he discusses coverage of juvenile court
cases.

Most of it, he says, panders to prurient interests. Also, the media
have no right to turn a child into a celebrity, even to discuss a
public policy issue, he says, asking, "Is it Sally's job, at age 4, to
protect all other children?"

Another loud supporter of closed hearings is William W. Patton, a
professor at the Whittier Law School in California whose testimony
helped defeat an open court proposal in California last year. Patton
says reporters shouldn't be allowed in juvenile court because media
coverage of criminal and civil hearings has resulted in a skewed view
of the legal process.

Also, he says, open hearings will add insult to injured children by
allowing the media to use names and pictures, which facilitate
taunting.

The secret usually gets out

What Patton and other critics overlook is that exposure of children to
the public often occurs anyway at hearings that aren't closed. Though
Reed refused to open any hearings concerning Kolle and her son, the
appeals proceedings, where Kolle ultimately won her child back, were
open to the press and public.

Similarly, Kolle has informed the Beaver County couple who had her son
that she intends to sue them, and those hearings will be open.

In addition, had criminal charges been filed in the case, as they are
when parents are accused of incest, aggravated assault or murder, the
trial would have been open to the press and public. The U.S. Supreme
Court has prohibited automatically closing sexual assault trials, even
those involving children.

At open criminal hearings, testimony reveals the same sorts of intimate
details about families that are now concealed in juvenile court.
Children's names are available. Pictures may be snapped in courtroom
hallways. A parent may use a psychological evaluation as part of an
insanity plea. All of which makes it unclear why juvenile court
hearings are treated differently.

And at the outset, they were not.

The world's first juvenile court, born in Chicago in 1899, was open to
the press and public. Those that followed in other states, including
Pennsylvania, were too.

The court in Illinois remained completely open until 1965, when
lawmakers banned ordinary citizens but allowed reporters to remain.

Pennsylvania lawmakers did not seal juvenile courtroom doors until
1972, except in Allegheny County, for which the Legislature passed a
special, separate law in 1933 that closed its juvenile court.
Similarly, other states did not close their courts until after the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws recommended
it in 1968. Pennsylvania, and numerous other states, adopted that
uniform closure language virtually word for word.

Part of the reason early social reformers in Chicago failed to get
closed hearings was that the city's newspapers objected. David
Tanenhaus, a professor of history at the University of Nevada, says the
papers pointed out that judges could do anything in closed hearings,
and the public would have no way to find out.

For example, the papers said, a judge could essentially sell a child
into slavery by assigning custody to a nonprofit association that would
hand him over to a factory to use as an unpaid laborer. Though child
labor laws prohibit that now, those statutes hadn't passed in 1899, and
children then routinely worked in factories at shockingly low ages and
wages.

The Chicago activists turned that defeat to their advantage,
encouraging reporters, photographers and sketch artists to cover what
they believed were the good deeds of the nascent court after critics
questioned the legitimacy of a separate tribunal for children.

Now, at least two states -- Michigan and Florida -- routinely permit
both reporters and cameras in juvenile court hearings. And three
Indiana judges have allowed TV cameras into their courtrooms for
television reports on abuse and neglect.

Many legislators and judges in open states enthusiastically support the
concept of public hearings.

Judges in Illinois, Iowa and Oregon say open abuse and neglect hearings
now are just as routine and uncontroversial as open criminal trials.
"It is an accepted part of our way of doing things," Oregon Circuit
Court Judge Daniel Murphy says.

He says openness aids fairness. It means people can watch cases that
precede and follow theirs and see whether they're treated essentially
the same. "The appearance of being treated fairly is compromised when
things are done in secret," he says. "People are suspicious of anything
done secretly."

In Florida, former state Rep. Steven Wise says open hearings let the
public see how the courts decide policy issues, such as whether to
remove children from parents who spank them or help a homeless mother
find an apartment, or just take the kids.

Wise, a conservative Republican from Jacksonville who, with a liberal
Democrat, co-sponsored the law that opened court there, says the people
most hurt by secrecy are those who Wattenberg says she is trying to
protect with closed hearings -- poor people. Wise says: "The people
they hose the best are poor people without legal representation behind
closed doors."

Let the states decide

In protesting closed juvenile court hearings, Kolle's small cry from
Carnegie is joined by some powerful voices in Washington, D.C. The
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has announced its
support of open hearings, and a consortium of nonprofit organizations,
the National Child Abuse Coalition, is lobbying Congress to
specifically permit states to hold open hearings.

Some groups in the consortium don't support or oppose openness, but
want states to decide for themselves and are working to change federal
law to ensure that can happen.

Right now, what the law requires is a matter of dispute. Officially,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says open hearings
violate federal confidentiality requirements, and states permitting
them risk loss of federal funds.

Unofficially, HHS agreed not to withhold funds after it discovered just
how many states were conducting open hearings. It asked open court
proponents, who contend federal law does not require closed hearings,
to help resolve the situation by getting a waiver for open court
written into federal legislation.

The National Child Abuse Coalition has proposed that waiver to
Congress, and Tom Birch, spokesman for the group, says he expects it to
be adopted before year's end without controversy. "I think this is a
states' rights issue," he said, "And there is a states' rights
precedent."

Though Congress could give states the ability to open hearings, some
might not do it unless pushed. That shove could come from appeals
courts that may be faced with deciding cases such as the Florida
couple's challenge of closed termination hearings as well as lawsuits
based on state constitutional guarantees of open court.

Kolle says she's eager for a challenge in Pennsylvania. She believes
the injustice that occurred to her in Beaver County could only have
happened behind closed doors: "I am sure if a reporter had been there
to hear all that stuff, Judge Reed would not have acted the way he
did."

Her lawyer believes secrecy in Pennsylvania is ripe for appeal. "I
think," she says, "It will be challenged."

Tomorrow: New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago, and
one-time critics now support sunshine in the court.


Open Justice
First of three parts

Oregon's constitution unlocks juvenile courts
Two-sided tale: Single mom vs. the judge
Open and closed states

Day Two
Little girl's murder brought New York's juvenile court proceedings into
the light

Day Three
Mothers stir up the media to get back their children

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related articles:

Closed juvenile hearings overturned (3/12/03)
Court: Juvenile hearings are open (2/28/03)
Major changes urged for state child welfare system (11/21/02)
Panel wants to open hearings (11/21/02)
Custody hearing closed for boy who was stabbed in the skull, 11/1/02
PG asks open custody hearing, 6/26/02
Panel presses for open hearings, 5/31/02
Judge closes hearing on custody case for Bright children, 5/14/02
Mother denied custody of baby (7/11/02)
Judge to decide whether to open or close custody hearing (7/27/02)
Panel to study opening hearings on abuse, 9/30/01
Few problems, benefits in open hearings, 9/30/01
PG asks judge to open custody hearings, 10/2/01
PG seeks public hearing in child abuse case, 10/27/01
Lawyers for Brights seek closed hearings, assail 'media frenzy',
10/27/01
PG loses plea to open child abuse hearing, 11/06/01
Cambria judge weighs open juvenile court hearings, 11/14/01
Mother battles to reclaim baby taken from her, 11/22/01
Judge returns infant to his mother despite objections of county agency,
12/6/01
Judge denies access to juvenile hearing, 12/28/01
Minnesota court opens most juvenile hearings , 12/28/01

Greegor,

Opening up any governmental agency to closer public scrutiny is a very
good way to introduce additional checks on the system. I would support
any such effort if it further works to protect families/children from
the over-zealous.

Keep discussing and encouraging others to share successful parenting
practices and keep the "cohort" in check (they seem to need it).

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX








On Jan 25, 1:59 am, "Greegor" wrote:
From the bottom of main article:New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago (1996?),
and one-time critics now support sunshine in the court.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...ourt0923p8.asp

The trend toward opening juvenile court is now gaining momentum

Sunday, September 23, 2001

By Barbara White Stack, Post-Gazette Staff Writer ( Pittsburgh, PA )

In a secret hearing three years ago, a Beaver County judge terminated
the custody rights of a 19-year-old Allegheny County woman so that her
baby could be adopted by a pharmacist and his wife, a lawyer who had
shared a law office with the judge's wife.

The young mother objected to the secrecy. She wanted the whole world to
know what had happened -- that her baby had been given away without her
consent to a couple who refused to return him.

Her attorney, Jean Lupariello of Carnegie, knew juvenile court hearings
were closed in Pennsylvania, and she'd simply accepted it. But she
began to question the practice.

"There is no reason to hide things under a shadow," Lupariello says
now.

Lupariello is among those in Pennsylvania who want to pry open the
doors to juvenile courts. If they succeed, Pennsylvania would be in the
forefront of a nationwide movement toward open juvenile court hearings.

Over the past 20 years, states have begun opening juvenile courts, and
over the next 20, the trend is likely to continue. That's because
constitutional protections and changes in federal legislation may make
it increasingly difficult for any state to keep the public out.

As a result of laws passed in the 1990s, virtually every state now
permits the public into trials for juveniles charged with serious
crimes. Victims of those crimes, some of whom were denied access to the
trials or sentencing of the youths who hurt them, were among those who
pushed to open the hearings.

Now states are beginning to unseal the doors to the other side of
juvenile court -- the hearings at which judges determine whether to
remove children from parents accused of abuse or neglect. Twelve states
now routinely admit the press or public to such hearings.

Oregon was among the first, opening the doors to all delinquency and
abuse hearings in 1980. Eight years later, Michigan followed, then New
York four years ago.

Proponents of open abuse and neglect proceedings find themselves in an
underdog position, arguing not just against tradition but also the
first-blush perception that the bloody laundry of abusive parents
shouldn't be aired in public.

Still, they've begun to convert policy makers with their contention
that closed hearings are dangerous in a democracy and that the primary
beneficiaries of secrecy are child welfare agencies whose actions and
inactions are shielded from public scrutiny.

Florida legislators were persuaded by those arguments in 1994 and
opened all hearings except those for termination of custody. Minnesota
opened abuse and neglect hearings in 12 counties in a three-year
experiment in 1998. The following year, officials in Alaska recommended
open hearings. Within the past year, Arizona, Maine and Kansas began
researching opening hearings in abuse and neglect cases. A bill that
would open hearings at the request of parents is before the legislature
in Washington.

In Maryland, some judges let the public in; others don't. The same is
true in Ohio, where doors were partially opened by challenges to the
law closing hearings.

Lawsuits similar to those in Ohio could hasten the pace of states
opening abuse and neglect deliberations. A Florida couple has asked the
U.S. Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional closed
termination of custody hearings.

In addition, court challenges are possible in states with constitutions
guaranteeing open hearings. Twenty-two states that routinely close
abuse and neglect hearings, including Pennsylvania, grant
constitutional protection against secret tribunals. The hearings in
Oregon were opened after just such a challenge.

When Amanda Kolle, the young mother whose custody rights were
terminated in that secret Beaver County hearing, learned of
Pennsylvania's constitutional guarantee, which simply states, "All
courts shall be open," she wondered how in the world the proceedings
against her were closed. "They should be open. It says they should be
open. It is plain English. I do not know why they are not."

Shielding one side

Long before Beaver County Judge Robert C. Reed terminated Kolle's
parental rights, she tried to find out who had her baby so she could
try to get him back. The way she saw it, her baby, whom she'd left in
the care of a family friend while she sought treatment for depression,
had been kidnapped.

When Kolle's attorney got hold of court records naming the couple who
had the child, Reed clearly was unhappy that she had information he
considered privileged. That set up the classic debate over secrecy.
Opponents of secrecy contend that closed-door hearings can protect
inept and corrupt judges, lawyers and child welfare officials. Kolle
believes that she ultimately won her child back partly because she went
to the very open court of public opinion with her case.

Supporters of secrecy believe it protects children such as Kolle's son
from unwarranted and damaging publicity. Because Kolle took the case
public, they contend, her son will never escape a past that includes
his name and picture plastered on newspaper pages and television
screens. They believe Kolle had no right to put him in that position.

Among the foremost proponents of secrecy is Esther Wattenberg, director
of the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the University
of Minnesota. Wattenberg, who has taught social work for more than
three decades, bitterly protested Minnesota's open hearing experiment.

About the author . . .
Barbara White Stack, 46, is a reporter who focuses on child welfare and
delinquency.

A native of Bucks County and a graduate of Penn State University, Stack
joined the Post-Gazette in 1979. Her most recent project was "Is This
Justice?" a spring 2001 series about flaws in Pennsylvania's law
sending more teens to criminal court and prison instead of juvenile
court and reform school. Research for "Open Justice" was aided by a
grant from the University of Maryland's Journalism Fellowships in Child
and Family Policy. Stack can be reached at

She believes that parents accused of abuse or neglect and their child
victims have an absolute right to privacy. Permitting the public into
hearings where intimate details of their lives are discussed, including
psychological evaluations and drug test results, violates that right,
she contends. She fears careless reporters will sensationalize family
secrets and prying neighbors will spread cruel gossip.

In addition, she says, unlocking the doors would lay bare the private
lives of the poor who populate juvenile courthouses. Middle class
families would escape such exposure because the support systems they
can afford mean they are rarely seen in juvenile court, Wattenberg
says.

Among her philosophical companions is Dr. Bennett L. Leventhal,
professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
His voice rises in anger when he discusses coverage of juvenile court
cases.

Most of it, he says, panders to prurient interests. Also, the media
have no right to turn a child into a celebrity, even to discuss a
public policy issue, he says, asking, "Is it Sally's job, at age 4, to
protect all other children?"

Another loud supporter of closed hearings is William W. Patton, a
professor at the Whittier Law School in California whose testimony
helped defeat an open court proposal in California last year. Patton
says reporters shouldn't be allowed in juvenile court because media
coverage of criminal and civil hearings has resulted in a skewed view
of the legal process.

Also, he says, open hearings will add insult to injured children by
allowing the media to use names and pictures, which facilitate
taunting.

The secret usually gets out

What Patton and other critics overlook is that exposure of children to
the public often occurs anyway at hearings that aren't closed. Though
Reed refused to open any hearings concerning Kolle and her son, the
appeals proceedings, where Kolle ultimately won her child back, were
open to the press and public.

Similarly, Kolle has informed the Beaver County couple who had her son
that she intends to sue them, and those hearings will be open.

In addition, had criminal charges been filed in the case, as they are
when parents are accused of incest, aggravated assault or murder, the
trial would have been open to the press and public. The U.S. Supreme
Court has prohibited automatically closing sexual assault trials, even
those involving children.

At open criminal hearings, testimony reveals the same sorts of intimate
details about families that are now concealed in juvenile court.
Children's names are available. Pictures may be snapped in courtroom
hallways. A parent may use a psychological evaluation as part of an
insanity plea. All of which makes it unclear why juvenile court
hearings are treated differently.

And at the outset, they were not.

The world's first juvenile court, born in Chicago in 1899, was open to
the press and public. Those that followed in other states, including
Pennsylvania, were too.

The court in Illinois remained completely open until 1965, when
lawmakers banned ordinary citizens but allowed reporters to remain.

Pennsylvania lawmakers did not seal juvenile courtroom doors until
1972, except in Allegheny County, for which the Legislature passed a
special, separate law in 1933 that closed its juvenile court.
Similarly, other states did not close their courts until after the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws recommended
it in 1968. Pennsylvania, and numerous other states, adopted that
uniform closure language virtually word for word.

Part of the reason early social reformers in Chicago failed to get
closed hearings was that the city's newspapers objected. David
Tanenhaus, a professor of history at the University of Nevada, says the
papers pointed out that judges could do anything in closed hearings,
and the public would have no way to find out.

For example, the papers said, a judge could essentially sell a child
into slavery by assigning custody to a nonprofit association that would
hand him over to a factory to use as an unpaid laborer. Though child
labor laws prohibit that now, those statutes hadn't passed in 1899, and
children then routinely worked in factories at shockingly low ages and
wages.

The Chicago activists turned that defeat to their advantage,
encouraging reporters, photographers and sketch artists to cover what
they believed were the good deeds of the nascent court after critics
questioned the legitimacy of a separate tribunal for children.

Now, at least two states -- Michigan and Florida -- routinely permit
both reporters and cameras in juvenile court hearings. And three
Indiana judges have allowed TV cameras into their courtrooms for
television reports on abuse and neglect.

Many legislators and judges in open states enthusiastically support the
concept of public hearings.

Judges in Illinois, Iowa and Oregon say open abuse and neglect hearings
now are just as routine and uncontroversial as open criminal trials.
"It is an accepted part of our way of doing things," Oregon Circuit
Court Judge Daniel Murphy says.

He says openness aids fairness. It means people can watch cases that
precede and follow theirs and see whether they're treated essentially
the same. "The appearance of being treated fairly is compromised when
things are done in secret," he says. "People are suspicious of anything
done secretly."

In Florida, former state Rep. Steven Wise says open hearings let the
public see how the courts decide policy issues, such as whether to
remove children from parents who spank them or help a homeless mother
find an apartment, or just take the kids.

Wise, a conservative Republican from Jacksonville who, with a liberal
Democrat, co-sponsored the law that opened court there, says the people
most hurt by secrecy are those who Wattenberg says she is trying to
protect with closed hearings -- poor people. Wise says: "The people
they hose the best are poor people without legal representation behind
closed doors."

Let the states decide

In protesting closed juvenile court hearings, Kolle's small cry from
Carnegie is joined by some powerful voices in Washington, D.C. The
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has announced its
support of open hearings, and a consortium of nonprofit organizations,
the National Child Abuse Coalition, is lobbying Congress to
specifically permit states to hold open hearings.

Some groups in the consortium don't support or oppose openness, but
want states to decide for themselves and are working to change federal
law to ensure that can happen.

Right now, what the law requires is a matter of dispute. Officially,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says open hearings
violate federal confidentiality requirements, and states permitting
them risk loss of federal funds.

Unofficially, HHS agreed not to withhold funds after it discovered just
how many states were conducting open hearings. It asked open court
proponents, who contend federal law does not require closed hearings,
to help resolve the situation by getting a waiver for open court
written into federal legislation.

The National Child Abuse Coalition has proposed that waiver to
Congress, and Tom Birch, spokesman for the group, says he expects it to
be adopted before year's end without controversy. "I think this is a
states' rights issue," he said, "And there is a states' rights
precedent."

Though Congress could give states the ability to open hearings, some
might not do it unless pushed. That shove could come from appeals
courts that may be faced with deciding cases such as the Florida
couple's challenge of closed termination hearings as well as lawsuits
based on state constitutional guarantees of open court.

Kolle says she's eager for a challenge in Pennsylvania. She believes
the injustice that occurred to her in Beaver County could only have
happened behind closed doors: "I am sure if a reporter had been there
to hear all that stuff, Judge Reed would not have acted the way he
did."

Her lawyer believes secrecy in Pennsylvania is ripe for appeal. "I
think," she says, "It will be challenged."

Tomorrow: New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago, and
one-time critics now support sunshine in the court.

Open Justice
First of three parts

Oregon's constitution unlocks juvenile courts
Two-sided tale: Single mom vs. the judge
Open and closed states

Day Two
Little girl's murder brought New York's juvenile court proceedings into
the light

Day Three
Mothers stir up the media to get back their children

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Related articles:

Closed juvenile hearings overturned (3/12/03)
Court: Juvenile hearings are open (2/28/03)
Major changes urged for state child welfare system (11/21/02)
Panel wants to open hearings (11/21/02)
Custody hearing closed for boy who was stabbed in the skull, 11/1/02
PG asks open custody hearing, 6/26/02
Panel presses for open hearings, 5/31/02
Judge closes hearing on custody case for Bright children, 5/14/02
Mother denied custody of baby (7/11/02)
Judge to decide whether to open or close custody hearing (7/27/02)
Panel to study opening hearings on abuse, 9/30/01
Few problems, benefits in open hearings, 9/30/01
PG asks judge to open custody hearings, 10/2/01
PG seeks public hearing in child abuse case, 10/27/01
Lawyers for Brights seek closed hearings, assail 'media frenzy',
10/27/01
PG loses plea to open child abuse hearing, 11/06/01
Cambria judge weighs open juvenile court hearings, 11/14/01
Mother battles to reclaim baby taken from her, 11/22/01
Judge returns infant to his mother despite objections of county agency,
12/6/01
Judge denies access to juvenile hearing, 12/28/01
Minnesota court opens most juvenile hearings , 12/28/01

wrote:
Greegor,

Opening up any governmental agency to closer public scrutiny is a very
good way to introduce additional checks on the system.

Yep. I'm all for it. All the way open. NO shutting the courtroom for the
bad parts about the family.

The press having full access. Names and faces.

Watch what happens.

I would support

You can't support your Depends.

any such effort if it further works to protect families/children from
the over-zealous.

Won't do it because CPS is society's wish to stop people like you.

You'll love it even more as the courts begin to recognize that closing
the court for that portion of the hearing or trail where what the
parent(s) did to the child(ren) is revealed is going to be the only way
for the public to get the real story.

A few REAL stories coming out, my little child and family hating
borrower of other's material, and we'll see a couple of lynchings before
the court shuts down again.

I was reading CPS caserecords in 1980-81 as a student on a workstudy for
my practicum. I wanted a barf bag.

Keep discussing and encouraging others to share successful parenting
practices and keep the "cohort" in check (they seem to need it).

Like the one's you lifted from someone else's website? The lady that was
so strongly opposed to spanking, but you neglected to mention and used
her list to promote spanking as part of the agenda?


Non-spanker by choice,

Do you have children of your own you are raising?

Chris C.
TX








On Jan 25, 1:59 am, "Greegor" wrote:
From the bottom of main article:New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago (1996?),
and one-time critics now support sunshine in the court.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...ourt0923p8.asp

The trend toward opening juvenile court is now gaining momentum

Sunday, September 23, 2001

By Barbara White Stack, Post-Gazette Staff Writer ( Pittsburgh, PA )

In a secret hearing three years ago, a Beaver County judge terminated
the custody rights of a 19-year-old Allegheny County woman so that her
baby could be adopted by a pharmacist and his wife, a lawyer who had
shared a law office with the judge's wife.

The young mother objected to the secrecy. She wanted the whole world to
know what had happened -- that her baby had been given away without her
consent to a couple who refused to return him.

Her attorney, Jean Lupariello of Carnegie, knew juvenile court hearings
were closed in Pennsylvania, and she'd simply accepted it. But she
began to question the practice.

"There is no reason to hide things under a shadow," Lupariello says
now.

Lupariello is among those in Pennsylvania who want to pry open the
doors to juvenile courts. If they succeed, Pennsylvania would be in the
forefront of a nationwide movement toward open juvenile court hearings.

Over the past 20 years, states have begun opening juvenile courts, and
over the next 20, the trend is likely to continue. That's because
constitutional protections and changes in federal legislation may make
it increasingly difficult for any state to keep the public out.

As a result of laws passed in the 1990s, virtually every state now
permits the public into trials for juveniles charged with serious
crimes. Victims of those crimes, some of whom were denied access to the
trials or sentencing of the youths who hurt them, were among those who
pushed to open the hearings.

Now states are beginning to unseal the doors to the other side of
juvenile court -- the hearings at which judges determine whether to
remove children from parents accused of abuse or neglect. Twelve states
now routinely admit the press or public to such hearings.

Oregon was among the first, opening the doors to all delinquency and
abuse hearings in 1980. Eight years later, Michigan followed, then New
York four years ago.

Proponents of open abuse and neglect proceedings find themselves in an
underdog position, arguing not just against tradition but also the
first-blush perception that the bloody laundry of abusive parents
shouldn't be aired in public.

Still, they've begun to convert policy makers with their contention
that closed hearings are dangerous in a democracy and that the primary
beneficiaries of secrecy are child welfare agencies whose actions and
inactions are shielded from public scrutiny.

Florida legislators were persuaded by those arguments in 1994 and
opened all hearings except those for termination of custody. Minnesota
opened abuse and neglect hearings in 12 counties in a three-year
experiment in 1998. The following year, officials in Alaska recommended
open hearings. Within the past year, Arizona, Maine and Kansas began
researching opening hearings in abuse and neglect cases. A bill that
would open hearings at the request of parents is before the legislature
in Washington.

In Maryland, some judges let the public in; others don't. The same is
true in Ohio, where doors were partially opened by challenges to the
law closing hearings.

Lawsuits similar to those in Ohio could hasten the pace of states
opening abuse and neglect deliberations. A Florida couple has asked the
U.S. Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional closed
termination of custody hearings.

In addition, court challenges are possible in states with constitutions
guaranteeing open hearings. Twenty-two states that routinely close
abuse and neglect hearings, including Pennsylvania, grant
constitutional protection against secret tribunals. The hearings in
Oregon were opened after just such a challenge.

When Amanda Kolle, the young mother whose custody rights were
terminated in that secret Beaver County hearing, learned of
Pennsylvania's constitutional guarantee, which simply states, "All
courts shall be open," she wondered how in the world the proceedings
against her were closed. "They should be open. It says they should be
open. It is plain English. I do not know why they are not."

Shielding one side

Long before Beaver County Judge Robert C. Reed terminated Kolle's
parental rights, she tried to find out who had her baby so she could
try to get him back. The way she saw it, her baby, whom she'd left in
the care of a family friend while she sought treatment for depression,
had been kidnapped.

When Kolle's attorney got hold of court records naming the couple who
had the child, Reed clearly was unhappy that she had information he
considered privileged. That set up the classic debate over secrecy.
Opponents of secrecy contend that closed-door hearings can protect
inept and corrupt judges, lawyers and child welfare officials. Kolle
believes that she ultimately won her child back partly because she went
to the very open court of public opinion with her case.

Supporters of secrecy believe it protects children such as Kolle's son
from unwarranted and damaging publicity. Because Kolle took the case
public, they contend, her son will never escape a past that includes
his name and picture plastered on newspaper pages and television
screens. They believe Kolle had no right to put him in that position.

Among the foremost proponents of secrecy is Esther Wattenberg, director
of the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the University
of Minnesota. Wattenberg, who has taught social work for more than
three decades, bitterly protested Minnesota's open hearing experiment.

About the author . . .
Barbara White Stack, 46, is a reporter who focuses on child welfare and
delinquency.

A native of Bucks County and a graduate of Penn State University, Stack
joined the Post-Gazette in 1979. Her most recent project was "Is This
Justice?" a spring 2001 series about flaws in Pennsylvania's law
sending more teens to criminal court and prison instead of juvenile
court and reform school. Research for "Open Justice" was aided by a
grant from the University of Maryland's Journalism Fellowships in Child
and Family Policy. Stack can be reached at

She believes that parents accused of abuse or neglect and their child
victims have an absolute right to privacy. Permitting the public into
hearings where intimate details of their lives are discussed, including
psychological evaluations and drug test results, violates that right,
she contends. She fears careless reporters will sensationalize family
secrets and prying neighbors will spread cruel gossip.

In addition, she says, unlocking the doors would lay bare the private
lives of the poor who populate juvenile courthouses. Middle class
families would escape such exposure because the support systems they
can afford mean they are rarely seen in juvenile court, Wattenberg
says.

Among her philosophical companions is Dr. Bennett L. Leventhal,
professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
His voice rises in anger when he discusses coverage of juvenile court
cases.

Most of it, he says, panders to prurient interests. Also, the media
have no right to turn a child into a celebrity, even to discuss a
public policy issue, he says, asking, "Is it Sally's job, at age 4, to
protect all other children?"

Another loud supporter of closed hearings is William W. Patton, a
professor at the Whittier Law School in California whose testimony
helped defeat an open court proposal in California last year. Patton
says reporters shouldn't be allowed in juvenile court because media
coverage of criminal and civil hearings has resulted in a skewed view
of the legal process.

Also, he says, open hearings will add insult to injured children by
allowing the media to use names and pictures, which facilitate
taunting.

The secret usually gets out

What Patton and other critics overlook is that exposure of children to
the public often occurs anyway at hearings that aren't closed. Though
Reed refused to open any hearings concerning Kolle and her son, the
appeals proceedings, where Kolle ultimately won her child back, were
open to the press and public.

Similarly, Kolle has informed the Beaver County couple who had her son
that she intends to sue them, and those hearings will be open.

In addition, had criminal charges been filed in the case, as they are
when parents are accused of incest, aggravated assault or murder, the
trial would have been open to the press and public. The U.S. Supreme
Court has prohibited automatically closing sexual assault trials, even
those involving children.

At open criminal hearings, testimony reveals the same sorts of intimate
details about families that are now concealed in juvenile court.
Children's names are available. Pictures may be snapped in courtroom
hallways. A parent may use a psychological evaluation as part of an
insanity plea. All of which makes it unclear why juvenile court
hearings are treated differently.

And at the outset, they were not.

The world's first juvenile court, born in Chicago in 1899, was open to
the press and public. Those that followed in other states, including
Pennsylvania, were too.

The court in Illinois remained completely open until 1965, when
lawmakers banned ordinary citizens but allowed reporters to remain.

Pennsylvania lawmakers did not seal juvenile courtroom doors until
1972, except in Allegheny County, for which the Legislature passed a
special, separate law in 1933 that closed its juvenile court.
Similarly, other states did not close their courts until after the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws recommended
it in 1968. Pennsylvania, and numerous other states, adopted that
uniform closure language virtually word for word.

Part of the reason early social reformers in Chicago failed to get
closed hearings was that the city's newspapers objected. David
Tanenhaus, a professor of history at the University of Nevada, says the
papers pointed out that judges could do anything in closed hearings,
and the public would have no way to find out.

For example, the papers said, a judge could essentially sell a child
into slavery by assigning custody to a nonprofit association that would
hand him over to a factory to use as an unpaid laborer. Though child
labor laws prohibit that now, those statutes hadn't passed in 1899, and
children then routinely worked in factories at shockingly low ages and
wages.

The Chicago activists turned that defeat to their advantage,
encouraging reporters, photographers and sketch artists to cover what
they believed were the good deeds of the nascent court after critics
questioned the legitimacy of a separate tribunal for children.

Now, at least two states -- Michigan and Florida -- routinely permit
both reporters and cameras in juvenile court hearings. And three
Indiana judges have allowed TV cameras into their courtrooms for
television reports on abuse and neglect.

Many legislators and judges in open states enthusiastically support the
concept of public hearings.

Judges in Illinois, Iowa and Oregon say open abuse and neglect hearings
now are just as routine and uncontroversial as open criminal trials.
"It is an accepted part of our way of doing things," Oregon Circuit
Court Judge Daniel Murphy says.

He says openness aids fairness. It means people can watch cases that
precede and follow theirs and see whether they're treated essentially
the same. "The appearance of being treated fairly is compromised when
things are done in secret," he says. "People are suspicious of anything
done secretly."

In Florida, former state Rep. Steven Wise says open hearings let the
public see how the courts decide policy issues, such as whether to
remove children from parents who spank them or help a homeless mother
find an apartment, or just take the kids.

Wise, a conservative Republican from Jacksonville who, with a liberal
Democrat, co-sponsored the law that opened court there, says the people
most hurt by secrecy are those who Wattenberg says she is trying to
protect with closed hearings -- poor people. Wise says: "The people
they hose the best are poor people without legal representation behind
closed doors."

Let the states decide

In protesting closed juvenile court hearings, Kolle's small cry from
Carnegie is joined by some powerful voices in Washington, D.C. The
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has announced its
support of open hearings, and a consortium of nonprofit organizations,
the National Child Abuse Coalition, is lobbying Congress to
specifically permit states to hold open hearings.

Some groups in the consortium don't support or oppose openness, but
want states to decide for themselves and are working to change federal
law to ensure that can happen.

Right now, what the law requires is a matter of dispute. Officially,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says open hearings
violate federal confidentiality requirements, and states permitting
them risk loss of federal funds.

Unofficially, HHS agreed not to withhold funds after it discovered just
how many states were conducting open hearings. It asked open court
proponents, who contend federal law does not require closed hearings,
to help resolve the situation by getting a waiver for open court
written into federal legislation.

The National Child Abuse Coalition has proposed that waiver to
Congress, and Tom Birch, spokesman for the group, says he expects it to
be adopted before year's end without controversy. "I think this is a
states' rights issue," he said, "And there is a states' rights
precedent."

Though Congress could give states the ability to open hearings, some
might not do it unless pushed. That shove could come from appeals
courts that may be faced with deciding cases such as the Florida
couple's challenge of closed termination hearings as well as lawsuits
based on state constitutional guarantees of open court.

Kolle says she's eager for a challenge in Pennsylvania. She believes
the injustice that occurred to her in Beaver County could only have
happened behind closed doors: "I am sure if a reporter had been there
to hear all that stuff, Judge Reed would not have acted the way he
did."

Her lawyer believes secrecy in Pennsylvania is ripe for appeal. "I
think," she says, "It will be challenged."

Tomorrow: New York opened its juvenile hearings four years ago, and
one-time critics now support sunshine in the court.

Open Justice
First of three parts

Oregon's constitution unlocks juvenile courts
Two-sided tale: Single mom vs. the judge
Open and closed states

Day Two
Little girl's murder brought New York's juvenile court proceedings into
the light

Day Three
Mothers stir up the media to get back their children

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Related articles:

Closed juvenile hearings overturned (3/12/03)
Court: Juvenile hearings are open (2/28/03)
Major changes urged for state child welfare system (11/21/02)
Panel wants to open hearings (11/21/02)
Custody hearing closed for boy who was stabbed in the skull, 11/1/02
PG asks open custody hearing, 6/26/02
Panel presses for open hearings, 5/31/02
Judge closes hearing on custody case for Bright children, 5/14/02
Mother denied custody of baby (7/11/02)
Judge to decide whether to open or close custody hearing (7/27/02)
Panel to study opening hearings on abuse, 9/30/01
Few problems, benefits in open hearings, 9/30/01
PG asks judge to open custody hearings, 10/2/01
PG seeks public hearing in child abuse case, 10/27/01
Lawyers for Brights seek closed hearings, assail 'media frenzy',
10/27/01
PG loses plea to open child abuse hearing, 11/06/01
Cambria judge weighs open juvenile court hearings, 11/14/01
Mother battles to reclaim baby taken from her, 11/22/01
Judge returns infant to his mother despite objections of county agency,
12/6/01
Judge denies access to juvenile hearing, 12/28/01
Minnesota court opens most juvenile hearings , 12/28/01

wrote:
Greegor,

Opening up any governmental agency to closer public scrutiny is a very
good way to introduce additional checks on the system. I would support
any such effort if it further works to protect families/children from
the over-zealous.

Keep discussing and encouraging others to share successful parenting
practices and keep the "cohort" in check (they seem to need it).

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX

I can't wait to see Greg's fawning response. He's that desperate for
rescue that he'd take it from this creep?

Read his posting history folks.

Ugh!

snip....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Related articles:

Closed juvenile hearings overturned (3/12/03)
Court: Juvenile hearings are open (2/28/03)
Major changes urged for state child welfare system (11/21/02)
Panel wants to open hearings (11/21/02)
Custody hearing closed for boy who was stabbed in the skull, 11/1/02
PG asks open custody hearing, 6/26/02
Panel presses for open hearings, 5/31/02
Judge closes hearing on custody case for Bright children, 5/14/02
Mother denied custody of baby (7/11/02)
Judge to decide whether to open or close custody hearing (7/27/02)
Panel to study opening hearings on abuse, 9/30/01
Few problems, benefits in open hearings, 9/30/01
PG asks judge to open custody hearings, 10/2/01
PG seeks public hearing in child abuse case, 10/27/01
Lawyers for Brights seek closed hearings, assail 'media frenzy',
10/27/01
PG loses plea to open child abuse hearing, 11/06/01
Cambria judge weighs open juvenile court hearings, 11/14/01
Mother battles to reclaim baby taken from her, 11/22/01
Judge returns infant to his mother despite objections of county agency,
12/6/01
Judge denies access to juvenile hearing, 12/28/01
Minnesota court opens most juvenile hearings , 12/28/01

And the judge most always protects the perps from public outrage by
closing the court for "that" part of the testimony.

He or she KNOWS the kind of public rage that occurs should the public be
made aware of the FULL truth.

They wouldn't be able to find a calm objective juror anywhere.

What parents have done, do, and will do to children can be almost to
much to bear reading, let alone seeing and hearing testimony on TV.

Smart child abusers would jump bail and get out of the country rather
than face the wrath of a FULLY informed public.

0:-

"0:-" wrote in message
newsoadnQ6s7MV8DSfYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@scnresearch. com...
wrote:
Greegor,

Opening up any governmental agency to closer public scrutiny is a very
good way to introduce additional checks on the system. I would support
any such effort if it further works to protect families/children from
the over-zealous.

Keep discussing and encouraging others to share successful parenting
practices and keep the "cohort" in check (they seem to need it).

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX

I can't wait to see Greg's fawning response. He's that desperate for
rescue that he'd take it from this creep?

Read his posting history folks.

Ugh!

snip....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Related articles:

Closed juvenile hearings overturned (3/12/03)
Court: Juvenile hearings are open (2/28/03)
Major changes urged for state child welfare system (11/21/02)
Panel wants to open hearings (11/21/02)
Custody hearing closed for boy who was stabbed in the skull, 11/1/02
PG asks open custody hearing, 6/26/02
Panel presses for open hearings, 5/31/02
Judge closes hearing on custody case for Bright children, 5/14/02
Mother denied custody of baby (7/11/02)
Judge to decide whether to open or close custody hearing (7/27/02)
Panel to study opening hearings on abuse, 9/30/01
Few problems, benefits in open hearings, 9/30/01
PG asks judge to open custody hearings, 10/2/01
PG seeks public hearing in child abuse case, 10/27/01
Lawyers for Brights seek closed hearings, assail 'media frenzy',
10/27/01
PG loses plea to open child abuse hearing, 11/06/01
Cambria judge weighs open juvenile court hearings, 11/14/01
Mother battles to reclaim baby taken from her, 11/22/01
Judge returns infant to his mother despite objections of county agency,
12/6/01
Judge denies access to juvenile hearing, 12/28/01
Minnesota court opens most juvenile hearings , 12/28/01

And the judge most always protects the perps from public outrage by
closing the court for "that" part of the testimony.

He or she KNOWS the kind of public rage that occurs should the public be
made aware of the FULL truth.

They wouldn't be able to find a calm objective juror anywhere.

What parents have done, do, and will do to children can be almost to much
to bear reading, let alone seeing and hearing testimony on TV.

Smart child abusers would jump bail and get out of the country rather than
face the wrath of a FULLY informed public.

I'm afraid that I must agree. To open the courts completely, 100%, would be
a devastating blow to the "Anti-CPS" mob. There would be no way to hide the
numbers of abusive parents and the abuses they perpetrate on their children.

It would also have the effect of cleaning the CPS system up a bit. Just as
C-SPAN did for our nations capitol. Putting everything before the public
would have a positive effect on both the outcome of cases and the way the
cases are handled. AND it would no longer allow the "Anti-CPS" mob to hide
behind the anonymous nature of the current system that they scream about
(but are all to willing to use). It would also put clip artists like kenny
out there in the full view of the public.

Ron

Note: I posted this to ascps also, where it by rights belongs more than
here in aps. Not a spanking issue in particular.

Ron wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
newsoadnQ6s7MV8DSfYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@scnresearch. com...
wrote:
Greegor,

Opening up any governmental agency to closer public scrutiny is a very
good way to introduce additional checks on the system. I would support
any such effort if it further works to protect families/children from
the over-zealous.

Keep discussing and encouraging others to share successful parenting
practices and keep the "cohort" in check (they seem to need it).

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX
I can't wait to see Greg's fawning response. He's that desperate for
rescue that he'd take it from this creep?

Read his posting history folks.

Ugh!

snip....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Related articles:

Closed juvenile hearings overturned (3/12/03)
Court: Juvenile hearings are open (2/28/03)
Major changes urged for state child welfare system (11/21/02)
Panel wants to open hearings (11/21/02)
Custody hearing closed for boy who was stabbed in the skull, 11/1/02
PG asks open custody hearing, 6/26/02
Panel presses for open hearings, 5/31/02
Judge closes hearing on custody case for Bright children, 5/14/02
Mother denied custody of baby (7/11/02)
Judge to decide whether to open or close custody hearing (7/27/02)
Panel to study opening hearings on abuse, 9/30/01
Few problems, benefits in open hearings, 9/30/01
PG asks judge to open custody hearings, 10/2/01
PG seeks public hearing in child abuse case, 10/27/01
Lawyers for Brights seek closed hearings, assail 'media frenzy',
10/27/01
PG loses plea to open child abuse hearing, 11/06/01
Cambria judge weighs open juvenile court hearings, 11/14/01
Mother battles to reclaim baby taken from her, 11/22/01
Judge returns infant to his mother despite objections of county agency,
12/6/01
Judge denies access to juvenile hearing, 12/28/01
Minnesota court opens most juvenile hearings , 12/28/01
And the judge most always protects the perps from public outrage by
closing the court for "that" part of the testimony.

He or she KNOWS the kind of public rage that occurs should the public be
made aware of the FULL truth.

They wouldn't be able to find a calm objective juror anywhere.

What parents have done, do, and will do to children can be almost to much
to bear reading, let alone seeing and hearing testimony on TV.

Smart child abusers would jump bail and get out of the country rather than
face the wrath of a FULLY informed public.

I'm afraid that I must agree. To open the courts completely, 100%, would be
a devastating blow to the "Anti-CPS" mob. There would be no way to hide the
numbers of abusive parents and the abuses they perpetrate on their children.

It would also have the effect of cleaning the CPS system up a bit. Just as
C-SPAN did for our nations capitol.

The anti CPS mob would not benefit much by this, because the majority of
their claims about violations of civil rights are bogus to the core.
They constantly misinterpret the Constitution, and even case law, by
claiming that cases of proven criminal misconduct that violated civil
rights, generalizes to all practice of CPS workers.

I'm of two minds about all this because I do believe that exposure of
the abusive families can and will put children at a disadvantage in the
community.

A lot of jobs require deep background checks and children with severe
abuse and treatment for it have a major black mark against them for
certain work...like that which can put a lot of people in danger.

Pilots, ship's captains, not to mention the sensitive weapons handling
personnel.

Putting everything before the public
would have a positive effect on both the outcome of cases and the way the
cases are handled.

Ah, but the kids. Imagine having it so much more easily found out that
one father buggered you.

AND it would no longer allow the "Anti-CPS" mob to hide
behind the anonymous nature of the current system that they scream about
(but are all to willing to use).

Gosh, I never noticed ... 0;-]

It would also put clip artists like kenny
out there in the full view of the public.

If it spilled over into such cases from child abuse cases. I don't think
he consults on CPS cases. But then what do I know. He might work for CPS
on the side. I couldn't prove that one way or the other.

Maybe we should ask him before he starts alternatively screaming,
whining, bombastically accusing us both, our wives, our children and my
Black Lab of CLAIMING HE WORKS FOR CPS.

He does have 'a way' with words, eh?


Ron

Kane