Subj: munchausen syndrome by proxy article
As published in Living Now Australia January 2004
What is munchausen syndrome by proxy?
Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a “diagnosis” used to describe an individual who
purportedly induces or exaggerates illness in a child to gain attention from the medical profession. MSBP
generally involves a mother deliberately making her child sick.
The term was coined by British doctor Sir Roy Meadow in the Lancet medical journal in 1977 to
describe parents, usually mothers, who harm their children in a medical context. The two cases in this
original paper were merely a collection of notes and did not appear to have any scientifically-based
research to underpin Sir Roy’s proposition. Many of Sir Roy’s articles on MSBP have been published in
the journal he himself edited, the Archives of Disease in Childhood.
A Munchausen syndrome by proxy diagnosis lacks scientific validity. It is not a definitive category in
the authoritative DSM IV (1994), only appearing in the appendix.
Parents and professionals should be aware that there are many similar labels to MSBP, which include
the following: somatisation disorder, abnormal illness behaviour, folie a deux, pervasive refusal syndrome,
hysteria, and factitious illness. Often the MSBP label will be combined with other labels. For example, a
mother may be accused of both MSBP and shaken baby syndrome.
It is a recent and extremely controversial diagnosis (Allison and Roberts, 1998). Despite its highly
controversial nature, MSBP is being used extensively in the medical profession, by social services, and in
court.
Dr Hayward-Brown contends that the profiling is extremely prejudicial, inaccurate, paradoxical and
often nonsensical
The prejudice of this MSBP label is so great that a mother’s credibility is completely destroyed. And,
once a child is removed it is virtually impossible for the mother to regain custody.’
It just takes a child protection officer from the Department of Community Services to say the child is
“at risk” and a mother loses her child.
‘The false accusations can happen to any mother or father at any time – it does not discriminate
regarding class or status,’
Mothers accused by over-zealous child protection
by Michael Nott
There are calls for judicial inquiries and the reopening of medical child abuse cases known as
‘Munchausen syndrome by proxy. MSBP originator Sir Roy Meadow is under official investigation by the
British General Medical Council, that registers UK doctors, as a “problem doctor”. He was criticised by
the British Court of Criminal Appeal and accused of giving misleading and contradictory evidence in
courts on the causes and incidence of child abuse.
Jennifer took her young daughter, Sara, who was suffering from a diagnosed illness to hospital as she
feared other critical medical problems. After being assessed by doctors, Sara was given medical treatment
however her mother questioned the doctors on the way they were treating the child.
That is when Jennifer’s nightmare began. She was accused of Munchausen syndrome by proxy
(MSBP) for allegedly causing her child’s illness – the basis of an MSBP “diagnosis”. Doctors called in
child protection officers from the New South Wales Department of Community Services and they took the
child into foster care.
This type of MSBP allegation is not unique. False and misleading MSBP charges are a worldwide
phenomenon with mothers across Australian, England, and the United States being falsely accused.
The New South Wales Department of Community Services does not have figures on MSBP
accusations, describing the number of MSBP cases as “insignificant”. However, one psychiatrist told an
accused mother that she is dealing with 27 families on a weekly basis.
These MSBP accusations, according to Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, occur to mothers whose children
suffer illnesses that cannot be easily diagnosed. ‘Mothers who present their children to hospital are
particularly at risk. This risk is compounded if they raise questions about their child’s treatment.’
Dr Hayward-Brown, a medical sociologist, was awarded her doctorate for investigating false
allegations of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. ‘Children are usually removed from the mother’s care,
often without adequate investigation, and mothers are only allowed minimal supervised contact or no
contact with their children. The prejudice of this MSBP label is so great that a mother’s credibility is
completely destroyed. And, once a child is removed it is virtually impossible for the mother to regain
custody.’
MSBP or Cisapride?
In another MSBP case a mother, Carol, has not had contact with her last baby who was removed shortly
after birth due to previous MSBP allegations. There are question marks over these prior accusations as the
children were prescribed the suspect reflux drug Cisapride. Documentation shows clearly that this drug
exacerbated her first child’s symptoms. Cisapride has been withdrawn in the United States and was banned
in England due to severe adverse reactions, including officially recorded deaths of several children.
However, Cisapride is still available in Australia and is used by the medical profession. The young
daughter of another accused mother was also treated with this drug.
The removal of a baby at birth due to previous MSBP allegations has been found to be a breach of
human rights by the European Court in the case of P, C & S vs. UK. The British Blair Government was
fined and had costs awarded against it totalling around 100,000 pounds. The European Court criticised
doctors and social workers for being “draconian” in their removal of the child.
In the MSBP cases investigated by Dr Hayward-Brown there is little natural justice in the accusations
– official files are falsified or wrong files used, and the medical profession and child protection workers
continually fail to fully investigate why a child has an illness. ‘One of the main predicaments for parents of
children with a difficult to diagnose illness is that the child’s symptoms are trivialised by the medical
professional.’
Alarmingly, one proponent of MSBP, Dr Herbert Schreier, describes MSBP mothers as ‘women who
are not wholly passive in their interactions with the medical profession’.
According to Dr Hayward-Brown, doctors accuse a mother of medical child abuse when they cannot
determine what is causing an illness. They do not consider that drugs such as Cisapride may have been
prescribed for the child, contributing to the medical problems. ‘The whole issue of MSBP has been hidden
away behind the closed walls of the secret Children’s Court that limits public and media access through
potential contempt of court actions.’
Doctors may want to protect themselves or their own incompetence by not fully investigating the
child’s illness. An expert British defence witness in child protection, now in Melbourne, Charles Pragnell,
said the so-called MSBP research conducted by Sir Roy Meadow was not scientifically based and was
merely his own conjecture, speculation and assertions that had questionable origins.
Mr Pragnell’s child protection expertise is backed up through his involvement in the exposure of
numerous false allegations of sexual abuse in Cleveland, England in 1987. ‘With those allegations it was
the over-zealous intervention of social workers that over-rode the rights of children and their families
causing them long-lasting emotional harm.’
He has found MSBP allegations follow threats by parents to report a doctor for negligence or
incompetence and threats to sue a doctor or a hospital. Therefore any retaliatory action by the doctor or
hospital required serious consideration. ‘In this way MSBP very effectively shifts the blame onto the
parents, who then come under scrutiny and investigation by the child protection system,’ Mr Pragnell
observed. He has found that government figures show that 85% of child abuse reports ‘have no substantive
basis’ and these false allegations are made for mistaken, mischievous, malicious or monetary reasons.
British opposition health and social services spokesman, Lord Howe, has called MSBP one of the most
pernicious and ill-founded theories to have gained currency in child care in the past 10 to 15 years. ‘It is a
theory without science. There is no peer-reviewed research to underpin MSBP and it rests on the assertions
of its founder Sir Roy Meadow.’
Concerns over the use of MSBP are also shared by Professor Colin Morley, formerly a paediatric
doctor with the University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine in England and now working at the
University of Melbourne. Dr Morley said that MSBP gave no indication of what was happening to a child
and that it was very non-specific and could be mis-interpreted. He said it should be abandoned in favour of
what was happening to the child, as it had become a diagnosis with emotional overtones. Further, as Mr
Pragnell has pointed out, “MSBP children” usually suffer from congenital disorders and birth injuries,
surgical injury, inappropriate medication and other treatments, allergic reactions, vaccine damage,
infections such as Giardia and chronic fatigue syndrome.
Dr Morley is also uneasy that mothers are being told to confess to harming their child because if they
do not confess, they are unlikely to have their child back. ‘That is blackmail and may result in a false
confession.’
MSBP lacks scientific validity
These experts agree that in some cases child abuse may be caused by mothers, but they also assert that the
MSBP accusations are an unsafe and unreasonable practice that fails to address the illness and problems of
the child. Dr Hayward-Brown said that accusing a person of MSBP lacks scientific validity as it was not
recognised as a psychiatric disorder, only appearing in the appendix of the psychiatric Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IVR, as requiring further research. ‘One single mother related the
extraordinary chain of events that labelled her as an injurious MSBP mother, when the medical profession
failed, for 18 months, to discover her son’s chromosomal disorder.’
Dr Hayward-Brown also said that in another case both parents were charged with contempt of court
when they took their daughter to a gastroenterologist, despite the fact that they obtained a diagnosis for her
bowel complaint. ‘If the parent does obtain another diagnosis, some doctors will argue that the diagnosed
illness may co-exist with MSBP. This argument protects professionals from being sued for negligence as
for example, lack of diagnosis delaying treatment, wrongful removal of the child, etc.
‘MSBP is a recent and extremely controversial “diagnosis” that is unreliable as it may exclude genetic
and other factors that may be causing a child’s illness. However, despite its highly controversial nature,
MSBP is being used extensively in the medical profession, by social services, and in court.’
Some doctors could not acknowledge that some illnesses were very hard to diagnose and treat. This is
shown by a report in the British Medical Journal (August 2003) noting that the Court of Appeal for
England and Wales ruled that children can sue the healthcare trusts and local authorities that wrongly
conclude that they have been the victims of abuse. The BMJ cited one of the cases used by the court in its
findings and this was a 6-year-old boy who was said by Professor David Southall of North Staffordshire
Hospital to be a victim of fabricated illness. However, the boy was removed from the at-risk register after
three months when his condition was diagnosed as extensive and severe allergies.
In the UK last October, Dr. Umapati Biswas was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and
was struck off the medical register for making false allegations of child abuse.
In the inquiry into the Cleveland sexual abuse cases, Justice Bulter-Sloss recommended that child
protection workers needed to fully investigate claims made by medical professionals, rather than purely
accepting their opinions.
Dr Hayward-Brown discovered that the names of particular doctors and psychologists keep cropping
up as the ones who accuse mothers of MSBP. ‘They seem to be the ones that are predisposed to accuse
mothers.’ These professionals often know very little about the family, the child and their medical history
and with little first-hand contact, make the MSBP allegation.
A diagnosis is made without seeing the mother or child and by reading selected reports of other
doctors. This is called diagnosis by “immaculate perception”, Dr Hayward-Brown said.
‘Sir Roy Meadow has accused mothers of MSBP by reading selected doctors’ files and child protection
workers’ reports on a child – he does not meet the mother or child. He also provides expert evidence
outside his own speciality. Sir Roy has practiced this form of “diagnosis” in Australian cases.’
‘The MSBP profile used by doctors contain paradoxes that make it very difficult, almost impossible,
for mothers to prove their innocence. For example, being an over-protective parent is part of the MSBP
profile, but so is being a negligent parent,’ Dr Hayward-Brown said.
‘Good mothers are also in trouble. In Heather’s case, in the notification to social services, she was
described as purportedly “a good mother” with numerous and credible references attesting to her fine
mothering skills. Nevertheless she was still accused of MSBP since MSBP mothers are “able to deceive
everybody”.’
Dr Hayward-Brown said the MSBP profile appears to be expanding with the invention of the so-called
“falsification disorder by proxy” (FDP) for mothers who do not fit MSBP profile. ‘Doctors and social
workers are starting to use somatisation and conversion disorders in MSBP allegations, while older children
and disabled and autistic children are being targeted.’
The national child abuse conference in Sydney (November 2003) heard a child protection unit say that
the “anxiety” shown by a mother for her child’s illness could be a “concerning behaviour”. The child
protection units suggested that another MSBP symptom was when parents sought a second or third medical
opinion.
Dr Hayward-Brown contends that the profiling is extremely prejudicial, inaccurate, paradoxical and
often nonsensical. ‘The mothers are presumed to be guilty and it is very difficult for them to prove their
innocence.’ She notes that many parents who have been accused of MSBP and had their children removed
have not had criminal charges of child abuse laid against them. There is no criminal evidence, she
contends. It just takes a child protection officer from the Department of Community Services to say the
child is “at risk” and a mother loses her child. ‘In my view, evidence of child abuse simply does not exist to
convict mothers in a criminal court. Higher courts are dismissing Sir Roy’s theories. Mothers accused of
MSBP are usually too scared to speak out openly against doctors and the Department of Community
Services. They fear contempt of court charges by the Children’s Court that is closed to the public and
media.’
In her years of investigation, Dr Hayward-Brown has been shown evidence of many unethical or
corrupt practices including breaches of social services policies and procedures, refusal to investigate a
medical doctor’s notification that was accepted without qualification and the exclusion of documents
indicating innocence.
She also found that files were tampered with, there was fabrication of evidence, hearsay evidence in
court, intimidation, blackmail, withdrawal of treatment, hospital errors and mismanagement, lack of
knowledge of overseas expertise or lack of expertise in the relevant specialty, and attribution of father’s
comments to the mother.
In one MSBP case, doctors and Department of Community Services used the wrong child’s medical
file – same child’s name but wrong person. And a mother found over 120 false or inaccurate items in her
DOCS files.
In her thesis, Dr Hayward-Brown pointed out that the lack of scientific credibility of the diagnosis
could be seen by outcomes in United States courts, several of which have ruled that the use of the MSBP
diagnosis is not admissible. (These include Martinez v. United States of America, State v. Lumbrera, and
Commonwealth v. Robinson.)
The British General Medical Council has confirmed that both Sir Roy Meadow and Dr David Southall
are under official investigation as “problem doctors”. With these investigations occurring, it is questionable
how doctors can diagnosis MSBP in alleged child abuse cases in “good faith” and how doctors can
continue to use Sir Roy Meadow as one of their principal references in court affidavits when alleging
MSBP.
Previously, Dr Southall was suspended from child protection work for two years during the British
Griffiths Inquiry into his research work and MSBP accusations. The South Australian Supreme Court has
ruled that Dr Southall’s MSBP testimony could only be regarded as a lay person’s opinion, albeit a wellinformed
one as he is a paediatrician.
What about Sir Roy’s Munchausen-syndrome-by-proxy research documents? According to Lord
Howe, when Sir Roy was challenged to produce them, Sir Roy claimed that they had been destroyed. The
legitimacy of the MSBP theory is now undergoing intense scrutiny worldwide for its lack of scientific
integrity, highly questionable support literature in medical journals, and its continuing use by a minority of
members of the medical profession.
Dr Hayward-Brown concludes that there are major and disturbing problems in the procedures and
attitudes of the medical and social service professions in relation to MSBP, and wonders how the medical
profession can prove that a MSBP diagnosis is indeed positive? ‘The false accusations can happen to any
mother or father at any time – it does not discriminate regarding class or status, as has happened in
England. It is a nightmare waiting on the doorsteps on every Australian family if their child becomes ill or
is disabled.’
Note: the names of parents, their children and identifying facts in the case studies have been changed
or altered to protect the parents and children as required by law.
Michael Nott is a former radio and television journalist and a senior media and communications
officer for federal, NSW and Queensland government departments and agencies.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Poor Children Likelier to Get Antipsychotics
DUFF WILSON
Published: December 11, 2009
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx, says he sees many children on antipsychotic drugs who do not need them.
Multimedia
Graphic
Children and Antipsychotic Drugs Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
The Rutgers-Columbia research, based on millions of Medicaid and private insurance claims, is the most extensive analysis of its type yet on children’s antipsychotic drug use. It examined records for children in seven big states — including New York, Texas and California — selected to be representative of the nation’s Medicaid population, for the years 2001 and 2004.
Read the rest of this article at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/health/12medicaid.html
Published: December 11, 2009
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx, says he sees many children on antipsychotic drugs who do not need them.
Multimedia
Graphic
Children and Antipsychotic Drugs Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
The Rutgers-Columbia research, based on millions of Medicaid and private insurance claims, is the most extensive analysis of its type yet on children’s antipsychotic drug use. It examined records for children in seven big states — including New York, Texas and California — selected to be representative of the nation’s Medicaid population, for the years 2001 and 2004.
Read the rest of this article at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/health/12medicaid.html
Friday, December 11, 2009
County officials oppose state takeover of child-protection services
Denver Post
County officials oppose state takeover of child-protection services
By Mike McPhee
The Denver Post
Posted: 12/10/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/10/2009 01:50:07 AM MST
A parade of county workers and elected leaders told Gov. Bill Ritter's panel on child welfare Wednesday that the state should not take over the county's roles of protecting children from being abused.
"There's no evidence that families and children will be better protected by the state," Jeanne North, director of nursing for the Tri-County Health Department of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties, said at a meeting convened by Colorado Counties Inc.
It was the fourth public meeting held to respond to recommendations made by Ritter's Child Welfare Action Committee, created in 2007 after the abuse-related deaths of 13 children in protective services.
Panel member Katherine Wells then asked North why she didn't support a regional program administered by the state that would be structured very similar to her department, Colorado's largest.
"We feel the counties will lose flexibility and control over their funding," North said.
The committee has its final meeting today to draft its recommendations to Ritter. In October, it released 29 recommendations, all of which have been received well by human service agencies except for two: No. 14, which calls for a central phone bank for reporting abuse; and No. 29, which calls for the state to centralize supervision and funding of protective agencies. Ritter tabled those and accepted the other recommendations.
He then convened another committee to study 14 and 29 and get back to him by December 2010.
Mike McPhee: 303-954-1409 or mmcphee@denverpost.com
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13964823?source=rss
(Maybe families would be better off if the states took over. At least elected official's are held accountable for their misdeeds, whereas DCYF/CPS is never held accountable.)
County officials oppose state takeover of child-protection services
By Mike McPhee
The Denver Post
Posted: 12/10/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/10/2009 01:50:07 AM MST
A parade of county workers and elected leaders told Gov. Bill Ritter's panel on child welfare Wednesday that the state should not take over the county's roles of protecting children from being abused.
"There's no evidence that families and children will be better protected by the state," Jeanne North, director of nursing for the Tri-County Health Department of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties, said at a meeting convened by Colorado Counties Inc.
It was the fourth public meeting held to respond to recommendations made by Ritter's Child Welfare Action Committee, created in 2007 after the abuse-related deaths of 13 children in protective services.
Panel member Katherine Wells then asked North why she didn't support a regional program administered by the state that would be structured very similar to her department, Colorado's largest.
"We feel the counties will lose flexibility and control over their funding," North said.
The committee has its final meeting today to draft its recommendations to Ritter. In October, it released 29 recommendations, all of which have been received well by human service agencies except for two: No. 14, which calls for a central phone bank for reporting abuse; and No. 29, which calls for the state to centralize supervision and funding of protective agencies. Ritter tabled those and accepted the other recommendations.
He then convened another committee to study 14 and 29 and get back to him by December 2010.
Mike McPhee: 303-954-1409 or mmcphee@denverpost.com
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13964823?source=rss
(Maybe families would be better off if the states took over. At least elected official's are held accountable for their misdeeds, whereas DCYF/CPS is never held accountable.)
Judge hears mom’s plea, orders DCYF to return newborn, reunite Woonsocket family (Finally, a fair Judge who see's DCYF for what they really are!)
Judge hears mom’s plea, orders DCYF to return newborn, reunite Woonsocket family
02:24 PM EST on Friday, December 11, 2009
By W. Zachary Malinowski
Journal Staff Writer
Netvilai Vixaisak feeds her daughter Isis her first bottle at their home in Woonsocket on Thursday after court personnel returned the infant, who had been in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The Providence Journal / Kathy Borchers
On Monday, Netvilai Vixaisak of Woonsocket made her way to the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence to hand deliver a note to Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr.
“Right now, I have so much pain in my heart and it is hurting a lot due to what [the state] is doing to me. I want to be with all of my kids all in the same place,” she wrote.
After reading the note, Jeremiah emerged from his chambers to speak with the young mother, who broke down and cried in his fifth-floor courtroom.
“Don’t worry,” he told her. “I’m on your side. I’m fighting for you.”
The judge was deeply moved to learn that Vixaisak, 28, gave birth to a daughter, Isis Diamond, on Dec. 2, at Women & Infants Hospital in Providence. Two days later, as she prepared to return home and breast-feed the baby, she learned that the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, which already had custody of her three other children, had placed a “hold” on the newborn. She said she “cried and cried until I couldn’t cry anymore.”
She visited the baby at the hospital on Sunday, Dec. 6. The next day, the infant was placed in DCYF custody, and Vixaisak reached out to Family Court for help.
Jeremiah scheduled an emergency hearing on Wednesday and summoned three DCYF officials into his courtroom: Jorge Garcia, DCYF’s deputy director; Martha Kelly, the agency’s legal counsel; and Mary Cameron, a social worker who has been assigned to Vixaisak and her family.
During the hearing, Jeremiah repeatedly interrupted Kelly, suggesting at one point that DCYF was going to extremes to keep the family apart. She said that the baby was taken away because the three other children are in DCYF custody. She also said that the three children had been removed because of “issues of domestic violence.”
Jeremiah shot back that DCYF removed the three children because they did not have any electricity in their apartment.
Kelly relented and said that “the department is willing to return the infant to her mother and father.” She said that the other three children could be returned by Christmas.
That wasn’t good enough for Jeremiah. He ordered that the baby be returned immediately and the other three children must be reunited with their parents no later than Friday.
Jeremiah said that he wanted to see the family reunited for the holidays.
The judge said he felt DCYF officials were heavy-handed in their decision to remove the children because they lacked electricity in their apartment. He knows that Vixaisak, who suffers from depression, and her husband, a convicted felon, are facing an uphill battle, so he assigned a home health aide to make daily checks on the family to make sure things are working out.
“We always have concerns,” he said. “We have to worry about the safety of the children.”
On Thursday, as Vixaisak waited for her baby’s arrival, she said she is thrilled at the thought of having all four children back. She is confident that she’s prepared for the challenges of raising four children.
“I’m ready to do this,” she said. “I’ll do anything DCYF wants me to do. I love my kids so much. I’ll do anything.”
Stephanie Terry, DCYF’s associate director of child welfare, refused to second-guess Jeremiah’s order or discuss the removal of the baby or three other children from the family. She said that confidentiality policies prohibit her from talking about the case.
“These cases are complicated, and there are lots of facets to it,” she said. “I can’t get into case specifics. We have worked with this family, and we will continue to work with this family. Our objective is always, foremost, to safely return kids home.”
There’s no question that Jeremiah is taking a chance.
According to an affidavit filed with the court, Cameron, the family’s social worker, said that the baby should not be allowed to return home with Vixaisak “due to information they have indicating a risk of physical harm to the child.” The sworn document also mentioned that the mother “has a history of mental health issues and she has been prescribed psychiatric medications.”
Cameron also wrote that the husband, Daothiam Phiensinh, 45, “has substance abuse and domestic violence issues.” She also pointed out that he’s on probation for 12 years for a past conviction of assault with a deadly weapon.
In late summer 2008, DCYF removed the three children from the couple’s home and placed them in separate foster homes across the state. The removal followed several run-ins that Vixaisak had with DCYF, the Woonsocket police and school officials.
On Sept. 5, 2008, DCYF reported in court documents that Vixaisak appeared at the elementary school in Woonsocket where two of her children were students and “made threats to bomb the school and DCYF.” That same day, she barricaded herself in her apartment with her children and refused to allow the Woonsocket police in.
At another unannounced visit, Cameron, the social worker, reported that the apartment had no gas or electricity.
Vixaisak’s lawyer, Frances K.R. Munro, managing attorney for Rhode Island Legal Services, said that her Laotian client is a very emotional woman, but she believes that DCYF may misinterpret her outbursts.
“I think there is a cultural issue,” she said. “It’s not wrong. It’s cultural.”
On Thursday, Vixaisak went out for two cans of baby formula and diapers so she would be ready for her week-old daughter. She’s looking forward to a beehive of activity in her living room as the holidays near.
About 2 p.m., Cameron, the social worker, delivered the baby and a bundle of new clothes.
“I feel happy,” Vixaisak said. “I have the energy to do things now. I’m so, so happy.”
bmalinow@projo.com
02:24 PM EST on Friday, December 11, 2009
By W. Zachary Malinowski
Journal Staff Writer
Netvilai Vixaisak feeds her daughter Isis her first bottle at their home in Woonsocket on Thursday after court personnel returned the infant, who had been in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The Providence Journal / Kathy Borchers
On Monday, Netvilai Vixaisak of Woonsocket made her way to the Garrahy Judicial Complex in Providence to hand deliver a note to Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr.
“Right now, I have so much pain in my heart and it is hurting a lot due to what [the state] is doing to me. I want to be with all of my kids all in the same place,” she wrote.
After reading the note, Jeremiah emerged from his chambers to speak with the young mother, who broke down and cried in his fifth-floor courtroom.
“Don’t worry,” he told her. “I’m on your side. I’m fighting for you.”
The judge was deeply moved to learn that Vixaisak, 28, gave birth to a daughter, Isis Diamond, on Dec. 2, at Women & Infants Hospital in Providence. Two days later, as she prepared to return home and breast-feed the baby, she learned that the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, which already had custody of her three other children, had placed a “hold” on the newborn. She said she “cried and cried until I couldn’t cry anymore.”
She visited the baby at the hospital on Sunday, Dec. 6. The next day, the infant was placed in DCYF custody, and Vixaisak reached out to Family Court for help.
Jeremiah scheduled an emergency hearing on Wednesday and summoned three DCYF officials into his courtroom: Jorge Garcia, DCYF’s deputy director; Martha Kelly, the agency’s legal counsel; and Mary Cameron, a social worker who has been assigned to Vixaisak and her family.
During the hearing, Jeremiah repeatedly interrupted Kelly, suggesting at one point that DCYF was going to extremes to keep the family apart. She said that the baby was taken away because the three other children are in DCYF custody. She also said that the three children had been removed because of “issues of domestic violence.”
Jeremiah shot back that DCYF removed the three children because they did not have any electricity in their apartment.
Kelly relented and said that “the department is willing to return the infant to her mother and father.” She said that the other three children could be returned by Christmas.
That wasn’t good enough for Jeremiah. He ordered that the baby be returned immediately and the other three children must be reunited with their parents no later than Friday.
Jeremiah said that he wanted to see the family reunited for the holidays.
The judge said he felt DCYF officials were heavy-handed in their decision to remove the children because they lacked electricity in their apartment. He knows that Vixaisak, who suffers from depression, and her husband, a convicted felon, are facing an uphill battle, so he assigned a home health aide to make daily checks on the family to make sure things are working out.
“We always have concerns,” he said. “We have to worry about the safety of the children.”
On Thursday, as Vixaisak waited for her baby’s arrival, she said she is thrilled at the thought of having all four children back. She is confident that she’s prepared for the challenges of raising four children.
“I’m ready to do this,” she said. “I’ll do anything DCYF wants me to do. I love my kids so much. I’ll do anything.”
Stephanie Terry, DCYF’s associate director of child welfare, refused to second-guess Jeremiah’s order or discuss the removal of the baby or three other children from the family. She said that confidentiality policies prohibit her from talking about the case.
“These cases are complicated, and there are lots of facets to it,” she said. “I can’t get into case specifics. We have worked with this family, and we will continue to work with this family. Our objective is always, foremost, to safely return kids home.”
There’s no question that Jeremiah is taking a chance.
According to an affidavit filed with the court, Cameron, the family’s social worker, said that the baby should not be allowed to return home with Vixaisak “due to information they have indicating a risk of physical harm to the child.” The sworn document also mentioned that the mother “has a history of mental health issues and she has been prescribed psychiatric medications.”
Cameron also wrote that the husband, Daothiam Phiensinh, 45, “has substance abuse and domestic violence issues.” She also pointed out that he’s on probation for 12 years for a past conviction of assault with a deadly weapon.
In late summer 2008, DCYF removed the three children from the couple’s home and placed them in separate foster homes across the state. The removal followed several run-ins that Vixaisak had with DCYF, the Woonsocket police and school officials.
On Sept. 5, 2008, DCYF reported in court documents that Vixaisak appeared at the elementary school in Woonsocket where two of her children were students and “made threats to bomb the school and DCYF.” That same day, she barricaded herself in her apartment with her children and refused to allow the Woonsocket police in.
At another unannounced visit, Cameron, the social worker, reported that the apartment had no gas or electricity.
Vixaisak’s lawyer, Frances K.R. Munro, managing attorney for Rhode Island Legal Services, said that her Laotian client is a very emotional woman, but she believes that DCYF may misinterpret her outbursts.
“I think there is a cultural issue,” she said. “It’s not wrong. It’s cultural.”
On Thursday, Vixaisak went out for two cans of baby formula and diapers so she would be ready for her week-old daughter. She’s looking forward to a beehive of activity in her living room as the holidays near.
About 2 p.m., Cameron, the social worker, delivered the baby and a bundle of new clothes.
“I feel happy,” Vixaisak said. “I have the energy to do things now. I’m so, so happy.”
bmalinow@projo.com
If you can't Treat them, Drug Them (DCYF/CPS Motto)
ChildLaw Blog
Commentary, insight and analysis on children's law, policy and current issues. Big Pharma: if you can't treat 'em then drug 'em
By James R. Marsh on December 10, 2009 11:10 AM
Powerful mood-altering drugs were prescribed to hundreds of Illinois foster children without the required consent of state child welfare officials, a Chicago Tribune analysis of government data has found.
And increasing numbers of young wards were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and given a class of anti-psychotic medicines that some physicians consider risky for youths because they can cause such side effects as metabolic abnormalities and pronounced weight gain.
Psychiatrist Michael Naylor, MD, who reviews psychotropic medicine regimens for DCFS, said that he worries that "marketing efforts" by pharmaceutical companies are driving increasing diagnoses of bipolar disorder leading to more prescriptions for antipsychotic medicines, and that some "physicians are skirting the consent laws."
A separate report by the University of Illinois at Chicago's department of psychiatry finds that an Illinois psychiatric hospital used medications as chemical restraints on kids. Streamwood Behavioral Health Center, "one of Illinois' largest psychiatric hospitals, dosed foster children with dangerous combinations of mood-altering" medications, "sometimes using the medicines as 'chemical restraints' to control youth who needed counseling."
The report also found that the center, "which has treated roughly 475 Department of Children and Family Services wards since 2007, is 'so understaffed as to be counter-therapeutic,'" and that "hospital staff resorted to extraordinarily high rates of emergency psychiatric medications, physical restraints, and seclusion." Categories:Child Welfare News,Children's Legal Issues
Tags:Foster Care
http://www.childlaw.us/2009/12/big-pharma-if-you-cant-treat-e.html?utm_source=feedb
______________________________________________________________________________________
This article is about Illinois, but the drugging of our children is taking place all over our Nation. In NH, my grandson Austin, who is in State custody is also being drugged, due to his new found violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced before taken by DCYF.
Commentary, insight and analysis on children's law, policy and current issues. Big Pharma: if you can't treat 'em then drug 'em
By James R. Marsh on December 10, 2009 11:10 AM
Powerful mood-altering drugs were prescribed to hundreds of Illinois foster children without the required consent of state child welfare officials, a Chicago Tribune analysis of government data has found.
And increasing numbers of young wards were diagnosed with bipolar disorder and given a class of anti-psychotic medicines that some physicians consider risky for youths because they can cause such side effects as metabolic abnormalities and pronounced weight gain.
Psychiatrist Michael Naylor, MD, who reviews psychotropic medicine regimens for DCFS, said that he worries that "marketing efforts" by pharmaceutical companies are driving increasing diagnoses of bipolar disorder leading to more prescriptions for antipsychotic medicines, and that some "physicians are skirting the consent laws."
A separate report by the University of Illinois at Chicago's department of psychiatry finds that an Illinois psychiatric hospital used medications as chemical restraints on kids. Streamwood Behavioral Health Center, "one of Illinois' largest psychiatric hospitals, dosed foster children with dangerous combinations of mood-altering" medications, "sometimes using the medicines as 'chemical restraints' to control youth who needed counseling."
The report also found that the center, "which has treated roughly 475 Department of Children and Family Services wards since 2007, is 'so understaffed as to be counter-therapeutic,'" and that "hospital staff resorted to extraordinarily high rates of emergency psychiatric medications, physical restraints, and seclusion." Categories:Child Welfare News,Children's Legal Issues
Tags:Foster Care
http://www.childlaw.us/2009/12/big-pharma-if-you-cant-treat-e.html?utm_source=feedb
______________________________________________________________________________________
This article is about Illinois, but the drugging of our children is taking place all over our Nation. In NH, my grandson Austin, who is in State custody is also being drugged, due to his new found violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced before taken by DCYF.
Have You Been Effected by NH DCYF and the NH Judicicial System?
If you've been effected by the corruption within NH DCYF and the NH Courts, it's time to come forward and file your complaint's with The Redress Grievance Caucus. This Caucus is made up of our own NH State Representatives. These are the people we voted into office and it seem's they are the only elected official's willing to listen and push for change and accountability.
They have already submitted petitions from a number of NH citizen's in this fight against the corruption within NH DCYF and the NH Judicial system.
If the people of NH want change, this is your chance to be heard and counted.
To file your complaint's, Please contact:
Paul Ingbretson at: ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com
And
Dan Itse at: itsenh@comcast.net
They have already submitted petitions from a number of NH citizen's in this fight against the corruption within NH DCYF and the NH Judicial system.
If the people of NH want change, this is your chance to be heard and counted.
To file your complaint's, Please contact:
Paul Ingbretson at: ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com
And
Dan Itse at: itsenh@comcast.net
Thursday, December 10, 2009
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition,Judge Tells Harvard Law School
Massachusetts News
By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003
The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.
"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.
"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature … dictated by God himself … is binding … in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority … from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.
She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.
"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."
According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. … While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"
The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.
However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"
Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'
Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her.
"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. … The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."
Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse.
"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed … creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.
"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"
Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."
The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths … in courts of justice?"
Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?
"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."
The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."
Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.
The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.
"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."
Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."
No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms
The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.
"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought … has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of … our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."
Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. … The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away … and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."
Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.
"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy.
"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."
Potential Nominee to Supreme Court
Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.
"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'
"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees."
Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.
From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.
The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.
Massachusetts News
By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003
The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.
She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.
"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.
"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature … dictated by God himself … is binding … in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority … from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.
She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.
"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.
"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."
According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.
"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.
"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. … While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"
The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.
However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"
Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'
Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her.
"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. … The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."
Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse.
"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed … creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.
"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"
Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."
The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths … in courts of justice?"
Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?
"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."
The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."
Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.
The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.
"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."
Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."
No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms
The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.
"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought … has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of … our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."
Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. … The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away … and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.
"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."
Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.
"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy.
"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."
Potential Nominee to Supreme Court
Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.
"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'
"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees."
Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.
From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.
The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)