|
Big Brother Takes Children, Again
Concerned because her baby could not hold down
milk, a mother takes her newly born baby to a pediatrician. Because of the
pediatrician's inability to diagnose the problem, Child Protection
Services is called and takes away the baby...indefinitely.
Absurd? Unthinkable? Well, according to Roberta this story is a
horrifying reality.
Just a few days after giving birth to her daughter, Roberta noticed
that her baby had difficulty holding down milk. She took her baby to a
pediatrician who was unable to diagnose the baby's gastric condition.
Instead, the pediatrician reported the mother to Child Protection
Services, who took the baby away. (Doctors are required by state law to
report all "reasonable suspicions of child abuse or neglect".) Shortly
thereafter, her two older boys were taken away as well.
Three months have passed, and Roberta still has yet to be reunited with
her children. This is despite the fact that:
the mother has completed all of her parental counseling classes
required by CPS,
the baby has since been re-examined by another pediatrician who
diagnosed the baby's problem as a medical condition (Gastroesophageal Re
flux), common to babies,
the baby continues to have the same digestive problems under the
care of the foster parents which had occurred while with the mother, and
the CPS worker in charge of this case recommends that all three of
the children be given back.
So why haven't the children, after three months, been reunited
with their loving mother? First, while CPS is very quick to remove
children, the present CPS bureaucracy is extremely slow to reunite them,
irrespective of the traumatic harm to children resulting from such
continued separation from their parent(s). Writing reports to justify
their actions is a higher priority to CPS than spending time to reunite
families.
Second, the present system of federal reimbursement essentially rewards
counties financially the longer children are kept in the foster care
system. This observation is the cornerstone of a major class action
lawsuit filed last year against Contra Costa County CPS.
Third, CPS workers, with only a few exceptions, are immune from
liability from harm caused by their actions dealing with families and
children. Hence, CPS has another incentive to take first, and
think later.
Fourth, those taxpayer funded "child advocacy" legal groups, often
chosen by the judge to represent the children, overstep their roles as
legal defenders and instead take on a role as social engineers via their
own vision of a "good" parent. For example, in Roberta's case, after her
court appointed attorney approached the "child's advocate" with the above
facts, the child's attorney arrogantly replied that she simply did not
"feel" that the children should be given back...at least yet. "Feel"?
Since when does the judicial process justify its continued disruption of
the family unit based upon mere feelings, rather than the clearly
presented, undisputed facts?
However, probably the most powerful explanation for the continuation of
this horrific injustice lies in the intimidating practices of a juvenile
system which prevents victimized parents, and children, from exposing
these injustices to the public. For example, after Roberta was recently
notified that the court would continue to delay in reuniting her with her
children, she decided to contact the media in order to expose this
travesty, without mentioning her children's names or the court's
closed-door proceedings. Nonetheless, just before she was about to be
interviewed by a reporter, she was informed by her attorney that she would
not get back her children if she told her story to the press. Roberta,
like almost all parents in her situation, felt little choice but to cancel
the interview.
In other words, the juvenile court system's seemingly unbridled
discretion creates a wall of intimidation, a wall preventing the kind of
public accountability necessary to expose the need for judicial reform.
Unfortunately, Roberta's case is by no means isolated. We at Pacific
Justice Institute continue to receive more and more phone calls from
non-abusive parents suffering from very similar injustices. That is why we
try to work through a network of CPS specialist attorneys willing to
represent parents, just like Roberta, who have suffered from a juvenile
legal system and CPS system that are in tremendous need of reform.
Pacific Justice will also continue to be available to give constructive
counsel to legislators interested in facilitating such reform. Some
states, such as Oklahoma, have already engaged in model reform, which
includes the ability for parents to have a jury of their peers before
being permanently separated from their children.
If you would like to be informed of similar cases Pacific Justice
Institute is handling, please feel free to contact us at (916) 646-6232.
Back| Home| Who| Requests| Cases| Press Releases| Seminars| Links| Unions |Donation
Last modified on 11/16, 2000 Direct Comments
or Questions to braddacus@pacificjustice.org
|