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.

Thanks, Wex. Very informative article from Connecticut and DCF.

Like the word "PERJURY" uttered by the Judge.

CPS has been oftentimes accused of violating family's rights in just such a
perjurious, lying manner.

And the families often times do not know what is occurring.

Even good families.


descriptors; NEW HAVEN, GREENWICH, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, CPS,
DCF, CONNECTICUT, CHILD ABUSE, FAMILY LAW, KIN CARE, SOCIAL WORK, CHILD
PROTECTIVE, KINSHIP, ASFA, FAMILY, FAMILY COURT, CHILD NEGLECT, CHILD WELFARE.


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.

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.