City Limits MAGAZINE
Date: December 2000 (Old article, but CPS hasn't changed and happens all over our Nation!)
TAKING LIBERTIES
She thought she was hired to protect children. But instead, a city child abuse investigator discovered that betraying her clients was part of her job description. Tales from a year inside the Administration for Children's Services. > By Akka Gordon
Emergency Children's Services is an inconspicuous, dingy building at the southern edge of Soho. About 30 to 40 kids come here each night, after they are taken away from their parents and while they're waiting for a foster home to take them in. When they get here, they cry, fight or sit silently on a stained couch, eyes glazed over. As an investigator for the New York City Administration for Children's Services, I spent many nights here.
When children first arrive at ECS they are taken through a metal detector by security. Some carry garbage bags containing their clothes; others tightly clutch just the one item they brought from home. Each is accompanied by an ACS child protective caseworker, who is given a number and waits to be called to check the kids in. On a busy night, of which there are many, this can take hours.
In the waiting room, some tattered old books and the odd toy lie about. A green banner hangs year round saying, "Seasons Greetings From Pre-Placement" and does little to conceal the cracking paint. The children hungrily eye a vending machine in the corner and beg their caseworkers for candy. And the caseworkers say, No way.
Some of these kids, who range from newborn babies to 17-year-olds, have been rescued from seriously abusive or neglectful parents. Others are here for reasons that are ambiguous, unjustified, even arbitrary. But they all come to the same dim room on Laight Street. And because the city's Administration for Children's Services has identified them as children in danger, this is the first of many unfamiliar places they'll be seeing as they journey through the city's foster care system.
Like me, the other caseworkers here are exhausted. Most of them are on the phone or stare up at the television hung from the wall. It is not part of the job to comfort the children just plucked from their homes. They are irritated and want to get home.
When I first started coming to ECS, I tried to reach out to all the children who were crying or sitting alone, shocked and terrified. It was easier with the little ones, because I could hug them and they would immediately respond. But the older ones were different. I asked them, "Do you know why you are here?" Chances were that they had only a vague idea; ACS investigators often do not tell the children they are removing exactly what is going on. Most of the time the kids shrugged and said, "I don't know." Or they knew pieces, like, "Because mommy didn't clean the house." Often it was, "Because mommy got arrested."
The more I ended up at ECS, the harder it became to comfort these children. When you had no idea where a child was going to end up that night, it was impossible to assure them of anything. When a child asks, "Am I going to get split up from my little brother?" you can't say no. Although all efforts are supposed to be made to place siblings together, there are countless exceptions. Instead you have to say, "Let's hope not, okay?"
One night I was at ECS with a 3-year-old named Christopher, whom I had picked up from a precinct in East Harlem. His mother was arrested that day on drug charges. He had been living in a crack house, according to the police who took him, and his arms and legs were caked with dirt. All he had with him was a pacifier and a scarf. I pulled the pacifier out of his mouth and asked him, "Are you going to talk to me?" He looked at me and said, "Fuck off." Other than this, he didn't speak.
In the waiting room he pulled a chair out from under a girl his age as she went to sit down. After she fell, crying, he jumped up and down, pointing and laughing at her. I tried to engage him, to keep Christopher from terrorizing the other children. Then another caseworker came in. He lifted him by one arm and shouted in his face, "Listen, you brat. You better sit down and SHUT UP." He tossed Christopher onto the couch and he bounced, landing on his head. The caseworker warned, "Don't even think about moving. I'm watching you." Christopher did not move or even cry. He looked at me for help.
The caseworker explained to me defensively, "That's the only way these kids listen. That's how they are treated at home, so that's the only way to get through to them." And I wondered, silently: If we aren't treating these children any better than they were treated in their homes, then what are we doing?
To the manager at ACS who makes the fateful decision to remove a child, and to the judge who approves it, a child exists on a piece of paper, alongside a list of disturbing circumstances. They don't see a child having a panic attack at 3 a.m. because he is suddenly alone in the world. Or slamming his head against a wall out of protest and desperation. The good intentions that go into the decision to remove a child often have little to do with the sometimes brutal outcomes of that choice. And the problem is not simply caseworkers who do not know how to talk to children. The whole system does not treat children with dignity and respect.
Usually, the kids fell asleep in my lap during the car rides to their new foster homes. But Christopher stayed awake all the way to his new home in Staten Island, until 3 a.m. He stared out the car window and watched Manhattan recede in the distance. He seemed to know exactly what was happening, like an adult trapped in a little body that couldn't speak. But when I finally had to leave him, he did what any 3-year-old would do in the face of abandonment. He clung for his life to my leg.
_______
When I graduated from college two years ago, I decided to become a caseworker for ACS. I wanted to learn how child welfare policy affects children and their families--not from reports and data, but on the front lines.
It may seem hard to imagine now, but in many ways I loved my job and had no plans to do anything else. As a caseworker, I was in a unique position to advocate for children and parents when they most needed help. Many of the parents and children I encountered made deep impressions on me, and I established close connections with some of them. I also enjoyed the investigative aspect of the job, the thrill of constantly going into unknown situations. At first, I saw it as a daily adventure.
But it did not take long for me to see that there was no adventure here. Many of these families were harassed, their rights systematically violated by ACS. Their children were being swallowed up by an agency that too often operated on virtually unchecked authority, wielded arbitrarily. And I represented that agency.
More and more, I felt that I could not do the job I believed I needed to do with an ACS badge around my neck. I resigned from the agency in October 1999, after working there for just over a year. After all that I had experienced, I felt, like many of my clients, crippled by feelings of powerlessness. At the time, the only thing I could do was write it all down.
In the year I worked there, the Administration for Children's Services investigated more than 50,000 reports of child abuse and neglect. I handled about 50 of them in my job as a child protective caseworker in the Manhattan field office. I went all over the city investigating cases--to housing projects, family shelters and, once, to an apartment where a father had made a robot for his kids out of old Metrocards. But except for the time I visited a family on the Upper West Side--who hired their own doctors to disprove ACS's allegations of child abuse--my work took me to low-income neighborhoods. The reality is that families who are likely to be reported to ACS are poor.
When I first started the job, my supervisor explained to me that bad caseworkers sympathize with the parents. "Being sentimental," he said, "is the worst way to be." If you relate to the parent, the wisdom goes, you cannot conduct an objective investigation.
The entire investigation process relies on the assumption that parents do not know their rights, starting with the moment they allow caseworkers to come into their homes. A lot of these families are so conditioned to caseworkers knocking on their doors that the presence of a city worker in their homes is just another part of life. Nearly half a million New York City children have been the subjects of ACS investigations. If you are poor and if you have had problems with the law, if you have ever been involved in a domestic violence dispute, if you took your child to the emergency room after an accident, if you have ever used drugs, if your children have problems in school, if you have ever been homeless, ACS has been a part of your life.
_______
Child protective specialists get about two to three new cases each week, sent to them by their supervisors. Those supervisors have their own supervisors, called managers. It's managers who sign off on the big decisions: whether a case is worth pursuing and, most critically, when to put children into foster care.
For a caseworker, each case represents a heavy set of tasks and responsibilities. First, unless the call was anonymous, she must contact the source of the report. Many calls come from professionals required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect, such as teachers, guidance counselors and hospital social workers. Other people call in reports, too, especially neighbors and family members. But many of these reports turn out to be false, and some of them are made purely for revenge.
Within 24 hours of a report, the caseworker has to visit the family at home. Caseworkers must interview each child and examine them all for marks and bruises. They must also interview every other member of the household, check every room for safety, check refrigerators and cabinets for food. Immunization records, birth certificates and proof of income must be verified. Next, caseworkers contact the children's schools and doctors. And in cases that involve drug allegations, the caseworker must accompany the parent to a drug test.
At any point during the investigation, a manager can order children to be removed from their homes if it is determined that their lives are at risk. But under state law and ACS policy, removals are supposed to be a last resort. As an alternative, the agency offers a menu of services to help families deal with problems; counseling, parenting classes, drug treatment and housekeeping services are the most typical.
These investigations and interventions save children's lives and protect their well-being all the time. Caseworkers are trained to look beneath the surface, to not trust a parent's statement without evidence and to compile as much information about a family as possible. Caseworkers and their supervisors are accountable for each case; the days when cases piled up on desks without anyone contacting a family are long over.
But accountability, at ACS, is a one-way street. A manager or supervisor has no one to answer to if a child who shouldn't be in foster care is removed from home anyway. There is no penalty for the wrongful taking of a child. And the pressures to remove are intense. I was trained to do removals in cases that did not necessarily qualify as abuse or neglect because, as one of my supervisors reminded me, "prevention is better than a cure." When I was resistant to doing a removal on a case, that same supervisor's advice was, "It's better to be safe than sorry." And at moments of uncertainty, the mantra was "Cover your ass"--a phrase heard often around the office. It was backed up by a pervasive fear--among caseworkers, supervisors, managers and attorneys--of seeing our photograph in the Daily News as the person who made an error that was literally fatal.
Caseworkers, usually the only people who have had direct contact with a family, don't have much to say in the decision-making process. Managers generally think of them as being incapable of giving meaningful recommendations. One week after the investigation begins, caseworkers have to file an electronic report. The computer offers two options: "safe" and "unsafe." But my manager accepted only one. Any time I determined a child to be "safe," my manager rejected it and returned it to me. The first step to protect yourself, I quickly discovered, is to determine that a child is "unsafe" from the outset of an investigation.
_______
In my division, if the allegations were bad enough--and especially if they came from a teacher, doctor, or other professional required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect--our manager considered them to be absolute truth. Virtually every time, if a caseworker could not find evidence to prove that the allegations were unfounded, the manager would refuse to sign off on a case, clearing it from our ever-growing caseloads, until we marked it "indicated" in the computer system. Indicated means that ACS has found credible evidence that abuse or neglect has taken place.
Our manager indicated a case in which an 18-year-old mother was mistakenly picked up in a drug sweep and immediately released. The same woman had been indicated in an earlier investigation, after hot tea spilled on her child at a family shelter, even though the social worker whose tea it was witnessed that it was an accident. Still, the manager decided that this previous incident--along with a robbery conviction and marijuana use before the child was born--was reason enough to indicate the new case.
Throughout ACS, the proportion of cases that end up labeled indicated has jumped from 26 percent in 1994 to nearly 40 percent in 1998. From a manager's point of view, indicating cases gives them the legal leverage they need to order a removal at any given time. For a parent, it also means something else: Having an indicated case on her record means that she cannot adopt a child, become a foster parent or work with children in any capacity.
From there, the decision to remove is entirely up to the manager. By law, children are supposed to be removed only if their physical or emotional health has been harmed or they are in immediate danger or being hurt as a result of a parent's failure to "exercise a minimum degree of care." In practice, that can mean anything from a parent failing to show up for parenting classes to sending her child to the hospital with a broken limb. But sometimes children are removed for reasons the caseworkers themselves cannot fathom.
On the night I met a client I'll call Louise at the homeless shelter where she lived, she told me her 11-day-old son, Kevin, was born without drugs in his body. That she prayed to God and he gave her another chance. And that she got clean on her own, without any program. I asked her about her other children and she told me what I already knew: She had given birth to five children who were all taken away from her while she was still in the hospital because each time she tested positive for crack.
Back at the office, my manager ordered me to remove Kevin. My manager, like most of her colleagues, did not go for the "life transformation" stuff. It did not matter that all of Louise's drug tests had been clean for the past two years. The manager called it a straight case of neglect, since the woman's other children had all been taken from her. Besides, my manager reminded me, Louise is taking heavy psychotropic medication.
Before going to court, we received a letter written by Louise's psychiatrist, whom she had seen regularly for the past year. He wrote:
I remember thinking in her case no medication and certainly no therapy had been able to have the effect on her that her new child has had on her....The effect of the role of motherhood on her has defined her and given her grounding. It is our social and moral responsibility to support [Louise] in functioning as a mother. It is clear that [Louise] is ill. However, it is my assessment, in accord with all other senior clinicians [here], that [Louise] poses no immediate threat to her child.
My manager didn't see things the same way, and she made me file the case in court. "If we can't get a neglect finding on this mother, I might as well go work for the Parks Department," she told me. When ACS's attorneys initially wouldn't accept the case, she emailed the head of the legal division. And while I was away at a three-day training, she finally managed to get Kevin into foster care. Louise had stayed overnight with Kevin's father that week after she missed curfew at her shelter, and my manager had found an old order of protection against him--evidence of domestic violence. Louise was nailed with "failure to protect" Kevin from this potentially dangerous man.
(Only later did Louise tell me that she did not really have a history of domestic violence; she made it up a few years ago since she knew it was the only way she could qualify for emergency housing. I explained to her that it was the only reason ACS was able to take Kevin. "Well, what would you have done?" she asked me.)
In Family Court, Louise spoke up for herself, because her attorney did not. She argued her case herself and, with the help of testimony from her psychiatric nurse, won the judge over. Louise got Kevin back on the condition that she secure housing, submit to drug tests, continue to see her psychiatrist and comply with ACS supervision.
The ability to return a child to his or her parent is one of the few rewards of a caseworker's job. After picking up Kevin from his foster care agency in Queens, I sat with him in the Emergency Assistance Unit, the city's dispatch center for homeless families, waiting for his mother to arrive. The waiting room was filled with mothers and crying kids. A little girl came in the waiting area and asked the lady behind the counter for a piece of paper. "No paper," was the curt reply. I told the girl to come over to where I was sitting. My hands were full because I was feeding Kevin, but I told her that she could rip some pages out of my notebook. She stood there and tore out about 30 pages, one at a time. Every few moments she looked up at me waiting for me to say no. I just smiled at her. "That your baby?" she asked me.
"No," I told her.
"You homeless?"
I shook my head.
"You took that baby, didn't you?" she asked.
"I'm giving him back."
"Yeah, you better," she warned.
_______
In my year at ACS, I was lucky to see only a few children who were severely abused and neglected. I did see bruises, belt marks and burns on kids. I saw dirty and hungry children. I saw a baby with cockroaches crawling in her crib. There were kids who had never been to school.
I had to ask a kindergartner if her father put his penis in her mouth. I sat in the back of an ambulance with a 9-year-old boy lying on a stretcher who had been beaten up by his mother with a baseball bat. He clutched his HIP card, his only possession now, in his swollen hand. I had a 3-year-old child whose mother forced him to stay awake for four days and three nights because she thought he was possessed by a ghost and would die if he fell asleep.
And I met some parents who were dangerous not just to their children, but to me. I had to get an order of protection for myself against one, and was warned by another that I was going to be killed by the Bloods outside Family Court.
But all this is what I expected from the job. In a strange way, these really horrible cases turned out to be the easy ones. It was the cases that weren't so clear-cut that kept me up at night. I saw removals occur when parents were accused of failing to follow up with a preventive service program or counseling. Breaking rules at shelters. Using or selling marijuana, or not sending their children to school. Failure-to-protect cases were common. One time, I removed a child from a mother accused of neglecting her infant son when she was hospitalized after a suicide attempt. It turned out the child was not yet even born when the suicide attempt occurred.
I worried about what I would do if my manager ordered me to remove. I worried about making mistakes myself.
_______
Two nights before Christmas 1998, I removed two children who I still believe should not have been taken from their home. I had been a caseworker at ACS for two months.
At the last minute, my supervisor instructed me to accompany an even greener coworker on a case I knew nothing about. On the way up the FDR, in the back of the city car, my colleague, Theresa, described the case to me. The children were to be removed because their 82-year-old great-grandmother, Ms. Ruth Jackson, was too old to care for them. Owen, 5, and Carla, 14, were in Ms. Jackson's legal custody, because their mother and grandmother were both absent, allegedly because of drug use.
According to the allegations from an after-school program she attended, Carla had recently slashed a girl in the face with a pocketknife at school and was beyond the great-grandmother's control. Theresa told me Ms. Jackson had medical problems, including high blood pressure, diabetes and glaucoma. Due to her "failing health," our supervisor believed that she was not an appropriate caretaker for the children.
The supervisor instructed Theresa to ask the great-grandmother to sign a form that would voluntarily place the children in ACS's custody. Theresa told me that she was instructed to call the police and remove the children only if the woman refused to sign the form. Our supervisor had informed Theresa that a refusal to sign would constitute neglect, because Ms. Jackson would not be complying with the best interests of the children.
"I don't believe that this is the right thing," Theresa complained to me. "The great-grandmother hasn't done anything wrong, and her health seems fine." I was furious at her for not telling me any of this before we left. I knew the options a family could be offered in a time of stress. A removal was to be done only in an emergency.
When we arrived, Ms. Jackson looked at us suspiciously and seemed reluctant to let us in. Decorated for Christmas, the apartment smelled like greasy chicken. It was 9 at night.
She instructed the children to go to their rooms. She sat on the sagging couch and asked, "What can I do for you ladies tonight?" She looked a little frail but seemed strong-willed.
I sat in the corner by the Christmas tree while Theresa tried to explain about the voluntary form. "You are old and you have so many health problems," she told Ms. Jackson unconvincingly. "Who will take care of the children if something should happen to you?"
Ms. Jackson said, "Ain't nothing happening to me. What if something happens to you?"
Theresa tried again. "It's not safe for the children to be living with you because you are too old to care for them properly and look after them." She looked at the floor as she said this, her voice shaking.
"What're you saying, miss? These children are not going anywhere. Nobody in this house is too old. I raised them kids since they were babies. The court gave me these children and nobody's going to take them away from me."
"My supervisor said that..."
"What?"
"My supervisor"
"Your what?"
"My supervisor. He wants you to sign this voluntary form so that the children will be safe." She placed the blank form on the coffee table.
"I don't know much about your supervisor, but nobody's signing these kids to them foster people. It's Christmas. Did you know that, dear?"
After about 15 minutes of this, Theresa signaled me to call the police. Out in the hallway I called 911, then went back into the apartment to wait for the cops.
Ms. Jackson had no idea they were coming. "Who would want to take these children?" she asked us. "It's Christmas. These children are happy. I take these children to school every day. I make sure they have everything they need to get along fine."
The cops banged on the door. "Who's that?" asked Ms. Jackson. "That your supervisor?"
I answered the door. Two cops stood around and did not say much. Theresa started crying, and everything fell into my hands. I explained to Ms. Jackson that the children were coming with us tonight and that she would have to come to court tomorrow to get them back. I had packed kids up quickly once before, so I braced myself to do it again.
The kids were watching The Brady Bunch, lying with their feet up on their great-grandmother's bed. I introduced myself and told Carla to pack up some clothes for herself and her brother. She looked at me as if the prospect of leaving might be exciting for a second. Owen wanted to know if "grandma" was coming. I told him no, and said some things about how everything was going to be okay. Ms. Jackson came in and put clean underwear on Owen, put his pajamas back on, and packed some clothes in a backpack for him.
As we continued to pack, Ms. Jackson stood in the bedroom doorway with her mouth half-open, no sound coming out. Carla ran down the stairs and waited for us in front of the police car.
In the back of the car on our way to ECS, Owen saw his big sister crying. He sat on my lap and started crying into my shirt.
_______
Almost all removals take place at night. Caseworkers are too busy during the day, and a family is also more likely to be home after dark. But some workers deliberately wait till after hours, for the time-and-a-half overtime. Doing a removal, staying out all night at ECS, and then taking the child to a foster home can mean more than doubling a day's pay. With caseworkers' salaries starting at under $32,000, overtime makes a big difference.
The caseworkers who want nothing to do with removals can rely on other caseworkers who volunteer for the money. When supervisors are desperate to find someone to do a removal, they often encourage caseworkers by reminding them, "You could use the extra cash." The consequence is caseworkers arriving at ECS with no idea why they just removed the kids who are with them. When the ECS intake worker or an ACS lawyer asks them why the children were removed, "I don't know, it's not my case" is a standard response. Or simply, "Because my supervisor told me to."
Any caseworker can tell you that they have done removals that they did not personally agree with. But they rarely complain to management, since they will never get in trouble for removing a child under supervisors' orders. Caseworkers are also quiet about unnecessary removals because doing a removal and then transferring a case to foster care takes them a lot less time than keeping it and trying to work with a family. Keeping a case obligates a worker to do regular home visits and follow-ups to make sure a family is getting preventive services. It also means dealing with anything that may go wrong and continuing to be responsible for the children's safety.
To become a child protective caseworker, you do not need to have any experience working with children, or demonstrate that you actually want to work with children. No one even asks if you like children. You must simply have a bachelor's degree in a social science field and pass a two-part exam. For the oral part we were asked to think of five questions we would ask a parent, based on a short case scenario. A "powerful rotting odor" is supposed to prompt test-takers to ask, "What is that smell?" For the written test, we listened to a series of voice mail recordings and wrote down phone numbers and other details. This was not a test of common sense, or even listening skills. It seemed to be a test to see if we were alive.
Once hired, caseworkers have six weeks of training, where they are taught how to conduct interviews, identify abuse and neglect, and carry out a removal. Legal issues, child development, domestic violence, sensitivity to cultural issues and handling angry clients were also part of the curriculum. Through it all, caseworkers are taught, it is essential to treat clients respectfully and professionally.
But the social work lingo of the training, where we spent two days discussing the need to "leave your baggage at the door," is far removed from the harsh reality of a field office. For new caseworkers, the obsessive concern with liability at the field offices quickly overshadows the reasonable criteria they have been taught for identifying abuse and neglect. Most quickly learn to abandon their training and to do what it takes to survive.
ACS has been making strides cutting down heavy caseloads, but it's still a stressful and at times tedious job--each case, no matter how trivial, calls for the same 15-page report. A contradiction at the heart of it all makes the work even more difficult. Caseworkers are trained to be service providers and advocates for families. To work together with families to uncover and solve problems in the home, caseworkers must establish an intimate rapport with their clients. Yet at the very same time they are engaged in an act of betrayal: as they write down parents' statements and survey their homes and behavior, caseworkers are building a potential court case against them. At no point are they able to tell their clients that everything they say can be used against them in court. The relationship of caseworker and client becomes one of manipulation, characterized by a deep lack of trust on both sides.
Although many of the best caseworkers get fed up and leave the agency, there are good workers who have been at ACS for years. They have survived because they have learned how to manipulate the system to make it work for themselves and their clients. They purposely omit or obscure facts about families in their case records and in their discussions with their supervisors to save clients from unnecessary court action. The most fortunate have supervisors who share their commitment to respecting families' rights. I was one of them: One of my supervisors was a mentor to me, and I considered her directives highly valuable.
Several months before I left the agency, an Emergency Children's Services supervisor who was resigning after more than 10 years blanketed the agency with a stunning email. He began by saying that he is not leaving the agency any better than when he started. He blamed this lack of improvement on ACS Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, whom he accused of being more preoccupied with making the agency look good in the media than with making substantial changes that help clients. "ACS cares more about statistics than they do about children, forgetting that those statistics represent real children," he wrote. The supervisor had equally harsh words for protective caseworkers: "ACS workers cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for doing wrong removals by blaming them on their supervisors or managers or on agency policy." He compared the level of obedience and complacency at the agency to Nazi soldiers who killed 11 million civilians during World War II because "they too were just carrying out orders." Nobody around me talked about the email, not even to disagree.
_______
Carla and Owen were placed in foster care that night. The next day, Theresa went to court. The judge, who happened to be in his seventies himself, ordered that Owen be returned home immediately. The judge stated the obvious: Old age is not grounds for neglect. Carla, however, was to remain in foster care because of her behavior problems. When the judge asked Theresa if she felt the children were in imminent danger, she answered that in her opinion they were not.
__._,_.___
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
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
CPS/DCYF Corruption You Tube Videos
Bring Austin Home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC0yPZQGKp0
Nancy Schaefer Exposes the Evil CPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TcDTJlPWbE
Child Protective Services is Legal Kidnapping in U.S.A.-Nancy Schaefer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdoS-JStH3k&feature=related
Nancy Schaefer on CPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1HjVU-UIQU&feature=related
Crime and Punishment-CPS BUSTED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTPVm8qKu_E&feature=related
CPS ~ Project CPS Reform Video Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNg0lr8_nQI
Child Protective Worker Training Video - Volume 2 - How to Make Money from Child Protective Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_QQvBgDvsU
The truth about CPS *COPY & SEND TO CONGRESS*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSP9WFx6Plo
CPS IS A FRAUD !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoiMBW4zqeQ
Secret recording of CPS board meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CexYtuDIcE
Weidner & Wagener EXPOSE CPS - STOP the FEDERAL FUNDING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbJyhUAeq4&feature=related
Family Court ordered Abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4nKYM5F9o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC0yPZQGKp0
Nancy Schaefer Exposes the Evil CPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TcDTJlPWbE
Child Protective Services is Legal Kidnapping in U.S.A.-Nancy Schaefer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdoS-JStH3k&feature=related
Nancy Schaefer on CPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1HjVU-UIQU&feature=related
Crime and Punishment-CPS BUSTED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTPVm8qKu_E&feature=related
CPS ~ Project CPS Reform Video Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNg0lr8_nQI
Child Protective Worker Training Video - Volume 2 - How to Make Money from Child Protective Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_QQvBgDvsU
The truth about CPS *COPY & SEND TO CONGRESS*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSP9WFx6Plo
CPS IS A FRAUD !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoiMBW4zqeQ
Secret recording of CPS board meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CexYtuDIcE
Weidner & Wagener EXPOSE CPS - STOP the FEDERAL FUNDING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbJyhUAeq4&feature=related
Family Court ordered Abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4nKYM5F9o&feature=related
A Catastrophe in Foster Care
A Catastrophe in Foster Care
Posted: 10 Jan 2010 09:07 PM PST
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
July 18, 1995
FOSTER CARE IS MEANT to be a safe haven for the saddest kids in America -- those who have been abandoned, hurt, or neglected by their parents. But it slowly seems to be turning into a system where children who were treated badly are sent to be treated badly again.
In March, 2-year-old Corese Goldman of Chicago died of drowning and blunt injuries at the hands of his foster mother. She is accused of killing Corese by forcing his head under water as a way to toilet-train him.
Luis Perez, 13 months, died on July 8 in Springfield, Mass., after being scalded in a bathtub. He had been one of five foster children -- four of them no older than 3 -- placed in the care of a single woman. In Boston not long before, 24-year-old Raul Vasquez, an unemployed single man, was arrested for raping one of two dozen boys the commonwealth had put in his custody.
Maryland officials put Laura Clem and her two brothers in foster care after their alcoholic mother was killed. For two years, the children were repeatedly molested in their foster home. Examined at age 3 1/2, Laura didn't know her own name, and bruises mantled her body.
Since 1993, an Arizona child has died in foster care, on average, once every 7 1/2 weeks. According to The Arizona Republic, at least four children have been "viciously beaten to death" by their foster parents.
Such horror stories, thank God, are not the norm. There are many wonderful people in the foster-care system, caseworkers and substitute parents who give of themselves generously. No one suggests that most children in foster care are as bad off as they would be had they been left in their original, dysfunctional households.
But in far too many cases they are no better off. And without exception they are worse off than they would be if a pair of devoted parents were allowed to adopt them.
In recent years, the number of American children in substitute care has exploded. Today it stands at close to 500,000. Every year more kids enter foster care than leave it. Way more: The population of children who are wards of the state is growing 33 times faster than the population of children overall.
At this moment, 50,000 foster children are free to be adopted. Their birth parents' legal rights have been severed. Nothing stands between them and the tens of thousands of potential adoptive parents who could give them permanent, stable homes -- except the government.
But the government has far less interest in getting these kids adopted than the kids do. For the state it is literally more rewarding to prolong foster care -- even bad foster care -- than to promote adoption.
In the new issue of Policy Review, Conna Craig of the Institute for Children dissects the awful cruelty of the foster care "leviathan." A former foster child who calls herself "one of the lucky ones" -- she was adopted by loving foster parents -- Craig is at pains to dispel the notion that what child welfare agencies mostly need is more money.
"America already is spending $10 billion a year on foster care and adoption services through public agencies," she writes. "The problem with foster care is not the level of government spending, it is the structure of that spending. The funding system gives child welfare bureaucracies incentives to keep even free-to-be-adopted kids in state care. State . . . agencies are neither rewarded for helping children find adoptive homes nor penalized for failing to do so."
Cockeyed incentives permeate the system. Foster parents are paid hundreds of dollars per month per child, with the amount rising as each child gets older. The longer kids remain unadopted, the more lucrative they become. "The money is tax free," notes Craig. "It doesn't take much imagination to see that paying people to parent can lead to mischief. . . . For too many foster parents, the children in their homes are reduced to mere income streams."
States typically claim that "special needs" render children unadoptable. To Craig this is the ultimate heresy. Every child is adoptable, she says. Sick children. Minority children. Older children. It is a myth, she says, "that adoptive parents are interested only in 'healthy white babies'" -- look at the waiting lists of parents seeking black or Hispanic kids, or kids with Down syndrome or AIDS. But to the state, an unadopted "special needs" child is valuable: The designation triggers a federal subsidy.
Craig scorns the bureaucracy's bias against transracial adoption, which robs black children of adoring moms and dads. She reports that adults deemed unfit to adopt are often hired as foster parents. She details the "victim status" that allows abusive birth parents to assert their legal rights for years: While children bounce between foster homes, their birth parents "are given multiple chances to fail at parenting."
For generations, the adoption of unwanted or uncared-for children was a private endeavor, and on the whole it worked. Now the system is dominated by the state. As a result, kids by the tens of thousands languish in foster care, while parents by the tens of thousands yearn to adopt.
Posted: 10 Jan 2010 09:07 PM PST
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
July 18, 1995
FOSTER CARE IS MEANT to be a safe haven for the saddest kids in America -- those who have been abandoned, hurt, or neglected by their parents. But it slowly seems to be turning into a system where children who were treated badly are sent to be treated badly again.
In March, 2-year-old Corese Goldman of Chicago died of drowning and blunt injuries at the hands of his foster mother. She is accused of killing Corese by forcing his head under water as a way to toilet-train him.
Luis Perez, 13 months, died on July 8 in Springfield, Mass., after being scalded in a bathtub. He had been one of five foster children -- four of them no older than 3 -- placed in the care of a single woman. In Boston not long before, 24-year-old Raul Vasquez, an unemployed single man, was arrested for raping one of two dozen boys the commonwealth had put in his custody.
Maryland officials put Laura Clem and her two brothers in foster care after their alcoholic mother was killed. For two years, the children were repeatedly molested in their foster home. Examined at age 3 1/2, Laura didn't know her own name, and bruises mantled her body.
Since 1993, an Arizona child has died in foster care, on average, once every 7 1/2 weeks. According to The Arizona Republic, at least four children have been "viciously beaten to death" by their foster parents.
Such horror stories, thank God, are not the norm. There are many wonderful people in the foster-care system, caseworkers and substitute parents who give of themselves generously. No one suggests that most children in foster care are as bad off as they would be had they been left in their original, dysfunctional households.
But in far too many cases they are no better off. And without exception they are worse off than they would be if a pair of devoted parents were allowed to adopt them.
In recent years, the number of American children in substitute care has exploded. Today it stands at close to 500,000. Every year more kids enter foster care than leave it. Way more: The population of children who are wards of the state is growing 33 times faster than the population of children overall.
At this moment, 50,000 foster children are free to be adopted. Their birth parents' legal rights have been severed. Nothing stands between them and the tens of thousands of potential adoptive parents who could give them permanent, stable homes -- except the government.
But the government has far less interest in getting these kids adopted than the kids do. For the state it is literally more rewarding to prolong foster care -- even bad foster care -- than to promote adoption.
In the new issue of Policy Review, Conna Craig of the Institute for Children dissects the awful cruelty of the foster care "leviathan." A former foster child who calls herself "one of the lucky ones" -- she was adopted by loving foster parents -- Craig is at pains to dispel the notion that what child welfare agencies mostly need is more money.
"America already is spending $10 billion a year on foster care and adoption services through public agencies," she writes. "The problem with foster care is not the level of government spending, it is the structure of that spending. The funding system gives child welfare bureaucracies incentives to keep even free-to-be-adopted kids in state care. State . . . agencies are neither rewarded for helping children find adoptive homes nor penalized for failing to do so."
Cockeyed incentives permeate the system. Foster parents are paid hundreds of dollars per month per child, with the amount rising as each child gets older. The longer kids remain unadopted, the more lucrative they become. "The money is tax free," notes Craig. "It doesn't take much imagination to see that paying people to parent can lead to mischief. . . . For too many foster parents, the children in their homes are reduced to mere income streams."
States typically claim that "special needs" render children unadoptable. To Craig this is the ultimate heresy. Every child is adoptable, she says. Sick children. Minority children. Older children. It is a myth, she says, "that adoptive parents are interested only in 'healthy white babies'" -- look at the waiting lists of parents seeking black or Hispanic kids, or kids with Down syndrome or AIDS. But to the state, an unadopted "special needs" child is valuable: The designation triggers a federal subsidy.
Craig scorns the bureaucracy's bias against transracial adoption, which robs black children of adoring moms and dads. She reports that adults deemed unfit to adopt are often hired as foster parents. She details the "victim status" that allows abusive birth parents to assert their legal rights for years: While children bounce between foster homes, their birth parents "are given multiple chances to fail at parenting."
For generations, the adoption of unwanted or uncared-for children was a private endeavor, and on the whole it worked. Now the system is dominated by the state. As a result, kids by the tens of thousands languish in foster care, while parents by the tens of thousands yearn to adopt.
Federal appeals court judges question dismissal of R.I. child advocate’s lawsuit
Federal appeals court judges question dismissal of R.I. child advocate’s lawsuit
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, January 6, 2010
By Katie Mulvaney
Journal Staff Writer
BOSTON — A federal appeals court panel that includes retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter appeared perplexed Tuesday by the dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families of widespread abuse and neglect of children in state foster care.
Rhode Island Child Advocate Jametta O. Alston and the New York-based advocacy group Children’s Rights asked the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux’s dismissal of the lawsuit alleging the system was underfunded, understaffed and mismanaged, and that children were being molested, beaten and shuffled from home to home while in state foster care. They argued that Lagueux had used a law intended to guarantee children access to the federal courts instead to bar them from seeking justice.
The DCYF countered that Lagueux was correct in finding that the children’s interests were already being served in state Family Court, where guardians had been appointed to handle each child’s case.
“The District Court judge did find these … children have the ability to have their voices heard,” Asst. Attorney General Brenda D. Baum said.
But those arguments did not sit well with the appeals court judges. Lagueux’s ruling seemed to chronicle years of mistreatment of children in state care, only to reject the three “next friends” chosen to represent the children in bringing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, noted Senior Judge Norman H. Stahl.
Didn’t Lagueux have the duty to then name appropriate people to take on the children’s federal case? Stahl asked. A minor may only bring suit when represented by a “next friend” or guardian appointed by the court. By dismissing the case, the judge is essentially saying “what is going on is good enough?” Stahl said.
Souter echoed that reasoning. “He’s throwing up his hands and throwing the case out,” said Souter, who returned to the appeals court for the first time since his retirement.
The record, Baum said, is thick with Family Court documents that show active engagement in the children’s cases. Souter replied that Family Court involvement is not in question. What is, he said, is whether “insufficient things are being done to protect children.”
Alston’s case may target the DCYF, Baum said, but Family Court is also involved in decision making. “It can’t be limited to them.”
The case, Souter said, boils down to whether the Family Court and the DCYF are doing the best they can. Alston is claiming, he said, that the next friends are needed because the system “does not provide minimum things that need to be provided.”
Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children’s Rights, argued that the Family Court guardians were not appropriate to represent the children in federal court because they were part of the system the suit seeks to overhaul.
She asked the appeals court to develop a test to gauge whether a next friend is qualified not on how close he or she is to the child, but on whether the person has a “good-faith interest in seeking justice” on a child’s behalf.
“[The next friends] are not ideologues,” Lambiase said. “They are here on behalf of the children.”
Alston and Children’s Rights filed the suit in 2007 on behalf of the 3,000 children in state custody following the death of T.J. Wright, a Woonsocket toddler beaten to death by his aunt and her boyfriend while in DCYF care. The suit initially named 10 children as plaintiffs and sought class-action status, saying their civil rights were being violated.
Alston appointed “next friends” to represent the children, including one child’s former foster mother, another’s past school psychologist and a Brown University professor who specializes in child maltreatment.
Lagueux dismissed the suit, saying Alston had no authority to proceed because the children were already under state Family Court jurisdiction. The three “next friends,” he said, had limited or nonexistent relationships with the children.
Alston wept after Tuesday’s arguments. “This is the first time I’ve heard judges understand the plight of children in their care,” she said. “It’s the first time I’ve seen how facts and justice can blend.”
Jim Lee, chief of the attorney general’s civil division, was more circumspect. “I think they see it as a serious case, and they’re going to give it serious consideration.” He was accompanied by Kevin Aucoin, chief counsel of the DCYF.
kmulvane@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/ADVOCATE_APPEAL_01-06-10_S7H0RRK_v8.3a64771.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, January 6, 2010
By Katie Mulvaney
Journal Staff Writer
BOSTON — A federal appeals court panel that includes retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter appeared perplexed Tuesday by the dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families of widespread abuse and neglect of children in state foster care.
Rhode Island Child Advocate Jametta O. Alston and the New York-based advocacy group Children’s Rights asked the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux’s dismissal of the lawsuit alleging the system was underfunded, understaffed and mismanaged, and that children were being molested, beaten and shuffled from home to home while in state foster care. They argued that Lagueux had used a law intended to guarantee children access to the federal courts instead to bar them from seeking justice.
The DCYF countered that Lagueux was correct in finding that the children’s interests were already being served in state Family Court, where guardians had been appointed to handle each child’s case.
“The District Court judge did find these … children have the ability to have their voices heard,” Asst. Attorney General Brenda D. Baum said.
But those arguments did not sit well with the appeals court judges. Lagueux’s ruling seemed to chronicle years of mistreatment of children in state care, only to reject the three “next friends” chosen to represent the children in bringing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, noted Senior Judge Norman H. Stahl.
Didn’t Lagueux have the duty to then name appropriate people to take on the children’s federal case? Stahl asked. A minor may only bring suit when represented by a “next friend” or guardian appointed by the court. By dismissing the case, the judge is essentially saying “what is going on is good enough?” Stahl said.
Souter echoed that reasoning. “He’s throwing up his hands and throwing the case out,” said Souter, who returned to the appeals court for the first time since his retirement.
The record, Baum said, is thick with Family Court documents that show active engagement in the children’s cases. Souter replied that Family Court involvement is not in question. What is, he said, is whether “insufficient things are being done to protect children.”
Alston’s case may target the DCYF, Baum said, but Family Court is also involved in decision making. “It can’t be limited to them.”
The case, Souter said, boils down to whether the Family Court and the DCYF are doing the best they can. Alston is claiming, he said, that the next friends are needed because the system “does not provide minimum things that need to be provided.”
Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children’s Rights, argued that the Family Court guardians were not appropriate to represent the children in federal court because they were part of the system the suit seeks to overhaul.
She asked the appeals court to develop a test to gauge whether a next friend is qualified not on how close he or she is to the child, but on whether the person has a “good-faith interest in seeking justice” on a child’s behalf.
“[The next friends] are not ideologues,” Lambiase said. “They are here on behalf of the children.”
Alston and Children’s Rights filed the suit in 2007 on behalf of the 3,000 children in state custody following the death of T.J. Wright, a Woonsocket toddler beaten to death by his aunt and her boyfriend while in DCYF care. The suit initially named 10 children as plaintiffs and sought class-action status, saying their civil rights were being violated.
Alston appointed “next friends” to represent the children, including one child’s former foster mother, another’s past school psychologist and a Brown University professor who specializes in child maltreatment.
Lagueux dismissed the suit, saying Alston had no authority to proceed because the children were already under state Family Court jurisdiction. The three “next friends,” he said, had limited or nonexistent relationships with the children.
Alston wept after Tuesday’s arguments. “This is the first time I’ve heard judges understand the plight of children in their care,” she said. “It’s the first time I’ve seen how facts and justice can blend.”
Jim Lee, chief of the attorney general’s civil division, was more circumspect. “I think they see it as a serious case, and they’re going to give it serious consideration.” He was accompanied by Kevin Aucoin, chief counsel of the DCYF.
kmulvane@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/ADVOCATE_APPEAL_01-06-10_S7H0RRK_v8.3a64771.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPS and False Reports of Abuse
Child Abuse Site
Kelli Deister
Bella Online's Child Abuse Editor
CPS and False Reports of Abuse
We live in a time when there are some people that abuse the system that is in place to help children that are being abused. Child Protective Services is an agency that is in place in every State across the United States. The name of the agency may not be Child Protective Services. It may be under another name. In order to find the agency in your State, you must look in your local telephone book. If you look under the Department of Social Services, you will find the agency that takes reports of suspected child abuse. For example, one State's agency is titled, Department of Children & Family Services. Apparently, the agency title was changed to bring the focus more on the family instead of just the child.
Child Protective Services (CPS) has been established so that people that have witnessed the abuse of a child, or suspect that abuse is occuring, can call them and report the abuse. A person can call CPS anonymously and leave information, such as the child's name, the parent's names, and the address of the family, if known. The person from CPS that is taking the call will also ask the caller the reason for their call. They will want to know if abuse has been witnessed, as well as why abuse is suspected. Once the call has been made to CPS, an individual from CPS will then be sent to the family's home to investigate the claim of abuse.
It is important to note that there are indeed people that call and report abuse, when no abuse is actually happening. A person may have a personal problem with another individual and simply call and make a false claim of abuse, in order to put the family through the investigative process. Some people get into an argument with a friend or loved one and make the call merely out of spite or anger. This is just wrong! It is also abuse of the system that is in place to help children.
CPS resources are to be taken very seriously! If no abuse is occuring, there should be no call placed to CPS. It is not just the money spent to investigate the false claims of abuse that is so wrong. It is the fact that the family unit is put through a very emotional time once the investigative process begins. Sometimes the children are removed from the home when a person says they suspect abuse, until it has been determined that no abuse is actually happening in the home. This is terribly wrong.
It not only messes with the routine that the child has at home, it also puts undue stress upon the family unit, especially the parents. Parents and children are seperated, which is very difficult for all involved. Parents are also then forced to prove that there is no abuse occuring within their home. I personally know of one family that is currently going through this difficult process. Their child has a medical condition and truly needs to be back home with his family. Having to learn of this situation has been very difficult for me because I believe the claims of abuse are false.
I believe very strongly that if the person making the false claim should become known to CPS, they should be punished for their actions. A person that calls 911 and either makes a prank call or a false report is punished upon doing so. This is because their call could have possibly prevented someone really in need of assistance from getting through to the proper authorities. When a CPS worker must go and investigate a false claim of child abuse, it uses funds that could have been put towards helping a child that is truly in danger.
If a call has been made regarding your children, you have every right to inform CPS of those people that you believe might have made the call. This will enable the person from CPS to investigate that person as well and could very well clear your family from claims of suspected abuse.
The services of Child Protective Services must be taken seriously. They are in place to help children that are truly being abused. (Too bad this isn't true. They are there to protect children, but don't. They are only thinking of the money to be made off of unabused children whose parents are falsely accused!)
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art65216.asp
Kelli Deister
Bella Online's Child Abuse Editor
CPS and False Reports of Abuse
We live in a time when there are some people that abuse the system that is in place to help children that are being abused. Child Protective Services is an agency that is in place in every State across the United States. The name of the agency may not be Child Protective Services. It may be under another name. In order to find the agency in your State, you must look in your local telephone book. If you look under the Department of Social Services, you will find the agency that takes reports of suspected child abuse. For example, one State's agency is titled, Department of Children & Family Services. Apparently, the agency title was changed to bring the focus more on the family instead of just the child.
Child Protective Services (CPS) has been established so that people that have witnessed the abuse of a child, or suspect that abuse is occuring, can call them and report the abuse. A person can call CPS anonymously and leave information, such as the child's name, the parent's names, and the address of the family, if known. The person from CPS that is taking the call will also ask the caller the reason for their call. They will want to know if abuse has been witnessed, as well as why abuse is suspected. Once the call has been made to CPS, an individual from CPS will then be sent to the family's home to investigate the claim of abuse.
It is important to note that there are indeed people that call and report abuse, when no abuse is actually happening. A person may have a personal problem with another individual and simply call and make a false claim of abuse, in order to put the family through the investigative process. Some people get into an argument with a friend or loved one and make the call merely out of spite or anger. This is just wrong! It is also abuse of the system that is in place to help children.
CPS resources are to be taken very seriously! If no abuse is occuring, there should be no call placed to CPS. It is not just the money spent to investigate the false claims of abuse that is so wrong. It is the fact that the family unit is put through a very emotional time once the investigative process begins. Sometimes the children are removed from the home when a person says they suspect abuse, until it has been determined that no abuse is actually happening in the home. This is terribly wrong.
It not only messes with the routine that the child has at home, it also puts undue stress upon the family unit, especially the parents. Parents and children are seperated, which is very difficult for all involved. Parents are also then forced to prove that there is no abuse occuring within their home. I personally know of one family that is currently going through this difficult process. Their child has a medical condition and truly needs to be back home with his family. Having to learn of this situation has been very difficult for me because I believe the claims of abuse are false.
I believe very strongly that if the person making the false claim should become known to CPS, they should be punished for their actions. A person that calls 911 and either makes a prank call or a false report is punished upon doing so. This is because their call could have possibly prevented someone really in need of assistance from getting through to the proper authorities. When a CPS worker must go and investigate a false claim of child abuse, it uses funds that could have been put towards helping a child that is truly in danger.
If a call has been made regarding your children, you have every right to inform CPS of those people that you believe might have made the call. This will enable the person from CPS to investigate that person as well and could very well clear your family from claims of suspected abuse.
The services of Child Protective Services must be taken seriously. They are in place to help children that are truly being abused. (Too bad this isn't true. They are there to protect children, but don't. They are only thinking of the money to be made off of unabused children whose parents are falsely accused!)
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art65216.asp
The Truth About the Family Court
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM: PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
Download entire article: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM:
PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
© 2006 by Margaret K. Dore, Esq. 1
Seattle, Washington
A. Introduction
This article describes the practical realities of child custody recommendations by court-appointed parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem. It argues that given these realities, the role of such persons should be abolished from child custody practice. Only with this course will the problems with their use be eliminated. Children will be better protected by the courts.
B. The Evaluation Process
Parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem
investigate custody arrangements and report back to
the court with their recommendations.2 In some
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Third Party Custody and Visitation: Illinois Comes to Terms with Troxel v. Granville
by David M. Cotter . . . .. Page 61
states, the guardian ad litem does not make a
"recommendation," but instead provides his position via a brief.3
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are also known as custody investigators, forensic experts and law guardians.4 Evaluators are usually psychologists or social workers; guardians ad litem are often lawyers. Sometimes guardians ad litem are lay persons, for example, with the CASA program.5 Many, if not most of these persons are hardworking and conscientious.
1. Appointment
It is not uncommon for an evaluator/guardian ad
litem to be appointed via nomination or suggestion.6
With this situation, attorneys can and do advocate
for the appointment of evaluators/guardians ad litem
whose views are compatible to their cases. For
example, if a father claims that the mother is
alienating him from the child, the father's attorney
might suggest evaluators known to find alienation
determinative.
©COPYRIGHT 2006 BY THE NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC., A RESEARCH GROUP COMPANY
DIVORCE LITIGATION
with the parents and the children.
In some courts, it is permissible for attorneys to
contact evaluators/guardians ad litem prior to appointment. Such contact can be ostensibly to verify availability. Its real purpose may be to "test the waters" regarding one's case. If the reaction is favorable, the attorney will move forward to
advocate appointment. If the reaction is
unfavorable, the attorney may look elsewhere.
Certain attorneys also tend to work with certain
evaluators/guardians ad litem. In other words, they
develop business relationships. With these
circumstances, the person appointed can be pre-
aligned to one side.
2. Investigation
Once appointment is made, the lobbying campaign continues. Each side provides the evaluator/guardian ad litem with information including multiple level hearsay.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem also typically meet
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may contact third
parties. They may also conduct or commission psychological (profile) testing for the parents or the children.7
3. Report
The results of the investigation, any
psychological testing and recommendations of the
evaluator/guardian ad litem are typically
summarized in a report filed with the court.8 In
these reports, the evaluator/guardian ad litem may
or may not rely on applicable law. This
phenomenon has been documented in at least one
reported decision. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d
239, 242 at fn. 2 (Vt. 1995) (describing survey
results).9
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may also rely on their own personal, social or cultural values. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. states:
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Editor in Chief . Brett R. Turner, Esq.
Executive Editor . . . . Laura W. Morgan, Esq.
Assistant Editor .. David M. Cotter, Esq.
Circulation . Anne de Angelis
DIVORCE LITIGATION (ISSN 1050-141X) is published
monthly by National Legal Research Group, Inc., a Research
Group Company, 2421 Ivy Road, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906; (800) 727-6574. Send address
changes to DIVORCE LITIGATION, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906. Our e-mail address is
DivLit@nlrg.com; our website is http://www.nlrg.com.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative
information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent
person should be sought. From a Declaration of Principles jointly
adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a
Committee of Publishers.
Editorial Board
Paul J. Buser, Esq. ... Scottsdale, AZ
Albert L. Cohn, Esq. . . . Saddle Brook, NJ
Robert T. Hinds Jr., Esq. .. Littleton, CO
Albert M. Bonin, Esq. .. Denver, CO
Dr. Cheryl Karp . . . . Tucson, AZ
Leonard Karp, Esq. . . ... Tucson, AZ
Richard Orsinger, Esq. . . .. San Antonio, TX
James J. Podell, Esq. ... Milwaukee, WI
Peggy L. Podell, Esq. . . . Milwaukee, WI
Bernard Rinella, Esq. . . . Chicago, IL
Robert G. Spector, Esq. ... Norman, OK
Carolyn S. Thompson, Esq. . . ..Oklahoma City, OK
John A. Turcotte Jr., Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
Michael C. Walther, Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
54
DIVORCE LITIGATION
When an evaluator recommends [a child's
placement] we are learning not about the
relative capacities of the parties but, instead,
about the relative values of the evaluators.10
4. Trial
By the time of trial, the evaluator/guardian ad
litem is in the position of defending his report and
recommendations. In states where the guardian ad
litem files a brief, he is in the position of defending
the brief.
Factors encouraging this phenomenon include the need of the evaluator/guardian ad litem to maintain his reputation, to thereby gain more appointments.11 He may also be concerned that the judge will reduce his fees if his recommendation or brief does not prevail.12
At this point, the evaluator/guardian ad litem's recommendations can become more strongly stated, i.e., more "black and white". The recommended parent may thus be portrayed as more clearly "good" and the other as more clearly "bad." But the reality may be in the middle, i.e., that like all of us, neither parent is perfect.
At trial, the evaluator/guardian ad litem typically testifies about his report and recommendations. This testimony typically includes hearsay previously provided by the parties.13 Repeated yet again, its substance can become grossly distorted—like a story repeated multiple times as part of a children's "telephone game."14
Evaluator/guardian ad litem testimony can also
include opinions on credibility.15 The author has
seen as a basis for such opinions, a parent's
psychological profile, for example, that a parent has
an "elevated lie scale." The author has observed
such testimony to be extremely prejudicial.16
The above situation is quite different from the
admission of an investigator's testimony in other
contexts. For example, an investigator in a criminal
trial would not be allowed to testify as to his or her
recommendations regarding conviction, as to
hearsay, or as to his or her opinion on witness
credibility.17
C. Judicial Reliance on Evaluators/Guardians
Ad litem
Most judges perceive evaluators/guardians ad litem as neutral investigators or advisors.18 Evaluator-psychologists can be held in especially high esteem.
With this status, the reports and
recommendations of an evaluator/guardian ad litem
can become the factual and legal standard for trial.
The burden of the non-recommended party is thus
to disprove a factual and legal standard. The burden
of the recommended party is merely to provide
corroboration for the standard. In Gilbert, 664 A.2d
at 242, the Supreme Court of Vermont found such
burden-shifting so unfair as to require reversal.
A related problem is the legitimization of
improper evidence through the evaluator/guardian
ad litem. In one record reviewed by this author, the
evaluator testified that the mother's family was
"manipulative" and dishonest. On cross-
examination, the evaluator conceded that as a basis
for her opinion, she was relying on unsigned written
statements provided by the father. Had the father
sought to admit these statements through himself,
they would have been viewed as hearsay, lacking
authenticity and self-serving. But admitted as they
were through the evaluator, their thrust
(manipulative/dishonest) was instead perceived as
fact. Such "fact" was then incorporated into the
court's decision; the child was removed from the
mother's primary care.
55
DIVORCE LITIGATION
With the perceived neutrality of
evaluators/guardians ad litem, their positions are often determinative.19 But as described above, evaluators/guardians ad litem are not neutral. Once they make their recommendations, they are in the position of defending them; they have conflicts of interest including concerns about their future appointments and fees.
D. Reforms
The poor quality of custody evaluations has been reported in the literature.20 Proposed reforms have ranged from making changes designed to improve their quality, to their complete elimination.21
Perhaps the most common approach has been to establish evaluation standards. In Washington State, for example, there are now court rules that require guardians ad litem to maintain documentation that substantiates their
recommendations.22 Minimum standards have also been imposed through case law. See, e.g., Patel v. Patel, 555 S.E.2d 386, 390 (S.C. 2001).23
Another approach has been to redefine the role of
the guardian ad litem as a lawyer for the child.
With this approach, the guardian ad litem does not
make a recommendation, but instead provides his
position via a brief. As noted above, this approach
is already used in some states. It is also promoted
by the ABA's "Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases," which
call for the appointment of a "Best Interests
Attorney."24 The Best Interests Attorney does not
act as a witness or make reports and
recommendations.25 He files briefs and makes
arguments.26
In Wisconsin, guardians ad litem have this role.27
Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth
report that these persons nonetheless function like
traditional guardians ad litem, i.e., they in effect
56
give reports and recommendations.28 A similar
phenomenon has been noted in New York. There is
a "recurring problem" that courts expect the
attorney for the child to give a recommendation.29
The concept of the Best Interests Attorney is, regardless, flawed. He represents the child's best interests, which is the ultimate issue before the court. There is the potential for the court to be usurped, or to at least not consider the evidence as carefully because he has already made the best interests determination.30
The conflicts of interest described above also continue to exist. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney has concerns about his future appointments and fees. Once he submits his brief, he is in the position of defending it. There are also problems with the evidence. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney relies on hearsay.31
E. Evaluators/Guardians ad Litem Should
be Eliminated from Child Custody
Proceedings
Another way to look at the use of
evaluators/guardians ad litem is that they act as a filter or prism between the court and the evidence.32 They are like "spin doctors." They tell the court what it sees, which can make a difference as to the court's perception.33 The court's normal decision-
making function is distorted so that children are harmed. Attorney Richard Ducote states:
[I]n domestic violence and abuse cases,
where courts are even more eager to
appoint GALS, children are frequently
ending up in the custody of the abusers
and separated from their protecting
parents. This tragedy does not happen
in spite of the GALS, but rather because
of the GALS.34
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
makes a similar point regarding the CASA program:
[W]e conclude that the only real
accomplishment of CASA is to
encourage the needless removal of
children from their homes.35
The distortion of the court's decision-making
ability cannot be rectified by reforms that leave the
filter of the evaluator/guardian ad litem in place.
The only reform that will eliminate the problem of
the filter is the elimination of the filter itself.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem must be eliminated
from child custody practice.
F. Conclusion
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are often hard working and conscientious. There are, however, fundamental problems with their role. They cause the court's normal decision-making function to be distorted. Wrong decisions are made.
Court-appointed evaluator and guardians ad litem must be eliminated from child custody practice—for the sake of the children.
Endnotes
1. Margaret Dore is an attorney in private practice
in Seattle, Washington. Her published decisions
include: In re Guardianship of Stamm, 91 P.3d 126,
133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing due to the
improper admission of guardian ad litem
testimony), and Lawrence v. Lawrence, 20 P.3d
972, 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (use of the
"friendly parent" concept in a child custody case
"would be an abuse of discretion"). Lawrence was
nationally recognized. See, e.g., Wendy N. Davis,
Family Values in Flux, 87 ABA Journal 26
(October 2001). Ms. Dore is a former law clerk to
the Washington State Supreme Court and the
Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked
for the United States Department of Justice. She is
Vice Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA
Family Law Section. She was nominated for the
2005 Butch Blum/Law & Politics "Award of
Excellence." She is a graduate of the University of
Washington School of Law. She has an M.B.A. in
Finance and a B.A. in Accounting. She passed the
C.P.A. examination in 1982. Further information
about Ms. Dore and her practice can be viewed at
www.margaretdore.com.
This article is based on: Margaret K. Dore,
Parenting Evaluators and GALs: Practical Realities, King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, December 1999.
2. See, e.g., Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 ("In both
guardianship and custody cases, the role of the GAL is the same: to investigate and supply information and recommendations to the court . . .").
3. See Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R.
Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child
Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial
System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 255, 271, and 277, fn. 106 (1998)
(describing the guardian ad litem's role in
Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot testify
themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
57
DIVORCE LITIGATION
4. See, e.g., Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at
255, fn. 2.
5. The Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) was founded by a Seattle judge. See www.nationalcasa.org/htm/about.htm. There are more than 900 CASA programs in operation
throughout the country, which are also known as Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Programs. Id.
6. See, for example, Wash. Rev. Code 26.12.177(2)(a) (2005) ("The parties may make a joint recommendation for the appointment of a "guardian ad litem . . .").
7. Cf. Margaret A. Hagen, PhD, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Regan Books, Chapter 8 (1997); and Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 857 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (fourteen psychological tests performed on parents, seven psychological tests performed on children).
8. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 278, ¶ 3.
9. A similar issue is reported in the Comments to the Washington State Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules, as follows:
Apparently GALs are not following statutory requirements, nor are the courts consistent in enforcing them.
GALR 2, Washington State Bar Association Comment, § (p).
10. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., "The Medicalization of Judicial Decision-Making", The Elder L. Rep., Vol. X, No. 7, February 1999, p. 3, ¶1, last line.
11. Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case of Abolition," 3 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 106, 146 (2002):
58
One of the particularly stealthy problems of
GALs is the conflict of interest issue. This
most commonly occurs when a GAL fights to
keep a child in the custody of a parent
previously endorsed and exonerated by the
GAL, despite mounting proof that the parent
is indeed abusive and the GAL erred. . . . In
such instances, GALs have forcefully opposed
the introduction of new abuse evidence and
instead have increased the blame on the non-
abusive parent. . . [T]he GAL hopes to avoid
any judicial finding that suggests his or her incompetence and jeopardizes future lucrative GAL appointments.
12. Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy
Hollingsworth make a similar point. Lidman and
Hollingsworth, supra at 302, ¶ 2. See also,
Margaret A. Hagen, supra at 207-08.
13. Cf. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
14. Cf. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d 239, 243 (Vt. 1995) (describing the guardian ad litem's facts as "double or triple hearsay when reported").
15. Id.
16. Cf. Marriage of Luckey, 868 P.2d 189, 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) ("the use of profile
testimony is unfairly prejudicial"). See also, State
v. Carlson, 906 P.2d 999, 1002-03 (Wash. Ct. App.
1995):
[No] witness may give an opinion on another witness' credibility. . . . An expert opinion [on
credibility] will not "assist the trier of fact" .
. . because there is no scientific basis for such
an opinion, save the polygraph, and the
polygraph is not generally accepted as a scientifically reliable technique. (footnotes
omitted).
17. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
DIVORCE LITIGATION
18. Cf. Stamm, 91 P.3d at 129, quoting Fernando
v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (the guardian ad litem acts as a "neutral advisor to the court").
19. See Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 297, 2d ¶ ("[m]ore often, . . . [t]he judge merely confirms the guardian ad litem's decision").
20. See, e.g., Dana Royce Baerger, et al. A
Methodology for Reviewing the Reliability and
Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations, 18 J. Am.
Acad. Matrim. Law., 35, p. 36 ("Concern regarding
the generally poor qualify of [child custody
evaluations] has prompted some commentators to
suggest an end to the use of [evaluations] in divorce
proceedings"); Timothy M. Tippins, Custody
Evaluations-Part I: Expertise by Default?, N.Y. L.
J., 7/15/03, p. 3, col. 1, Conclusion ("If the custody
recommendation is little more than a personal value,
judgment, intuition, or an educated guess, rather
than a conclusion compelled by reliable and valid
scientific research, it should not be received"); and
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 301 ("Soon
thereafter . . . [the parents] learn that this guardian
ad litem is a mere mortal getting information from
here and there, frequently not verifying anything .
. .").
21. See, e.g., Matrimonial Commission Report to
the Chief Judge of the State of New York, Hon.
Sondra Miller, Chairperson, February 2006,
(www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/matrimonialcom missionreport.pdf), p 46 ("Proposed reforms from many different sources have ranged from eliminating the use of forensics altogether to instituting changes that will insure the quality and proper use of the reports . . ."); and Ducote, supra at 115 ("Guardians ad litem must be abolished in private custody cases . . .").
22. The Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules
(GALR) were adopted by the Washington State
Supreme Court in 2001. See GALR § 2(p) and
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_
rules.list&group=sup&set=GALR.
23. See also, Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 (limiting the admissibility of guardian ad litem testimony to that which is helpful under ER 702); and Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 531, 311-12 (Neb. 2004) (reversing because the guardian ad litem had been allowed to testify as an expert).
24. The Best Interests Attorney" is defined as a
"lawyer who provides independent legal services
for the purpose of protecting a child's best interests,
without being bound by the child's directives or
objectives." American Bar Association Section of
Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases, p. 2, §
II.B. (Approved by the American Bar Association
House of Delegates, August 2003)
(http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/aba.standards.pdf#s
earch='ABA%20Standards%20of%20Practice%2
0for%20Lawyers%20Representing%20Children').
25. Id., p. 3, § III.B.
26. Id., p. 6, § III.G.
27. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271, and
277, fn. 106 (describing the guardian ad litem's role
in Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can
make arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
28. Lidman and Hollingsworth state:
The Wisconsin courts' opinions have an
exasperated tone as they repeatedly reiterate
that these guardians ad litem must perform
lawyer-like functions: they can examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual
material in reports. Trial courts, parents'
59
DIVORCE LITIGATION
attorneys, and guardian ad litem-lawyers have
been chastised for "lapses" such as:
permitting the guardian ad litem to file a
"report" twenty days after the close of trial; or
allowing the guardian ad litem to file a
preliminary report and make an oral report to
the court after closing arguments. But
Wisconsin appellate courts do not reverse for
these lapses. Instead the reviewing courts characterize preliminary reports as briefs and
oral reports as arguments. (Footnotes
omitted).
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271.
29. Matrimonial Commission Report, supra at 43.
30. Cf. C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745, 749 (Pa.
2001) (the trial court's reliance on the guardian ad
litem constituted "egregious examples of the trial
court delegating its judicial power to a non-judicial
officer"); and Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772,
777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ("The overarching
problem in this case is that the trial court effectively
60
delegated its judicial authority to the parenting
coordinator").
31. See e.g., ABA Standards of Practice, supra at § V.E.
32. Cf. Small Justice: Little Justice in America's
Family Courts, Education Supplement, p. 6,
Intermedia Inc., Seattle WA 2001 (describing
evaluators and guardians ad litem as a filter). See also http://www.intermedia-inc.com/title.asp?sku= SM03&subcatID=29.
33. Id.
34. Ducote, supra at 135-36 (footnote omitted).
35. National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, press release, p. 1
(http://www.law.capital.edu/adoption/news_cases/ documents/NATIONAL_COALITION_response. pdf#search='Caliber%20%26%20Wexler%20%26 %20CASA%20%26%202122006'); see also
http://www.nccpr.org/.
Download entire article: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM:
PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
© 2006 by Margaret K. Dore, Esq. 1
Seattle, Washington
A. Introduction
This article describes the practical realities of child custody recommendations by court-appointed parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem. It argues that given these realities, the role of such persons should be abolished from child custody practice. Only with this course will the problems with their use be eliminated. Children will be better protected by the courts.
B. The Evaluation Process
Parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem
investigate custody arrangements and report back to
the court with their recommendations.2 In some
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Third Party Custody and Visitation: Illinois Comes to Terms with Troxel v. Granville
by David M. Cotter . . . .. Page 61
states, the guardian ad litem does not make a
"recommendation," but instead provides his position via a brief.3
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are also known as custody investigators, forensic experts and law guardians.4 Evaluators are usually psychologists or social workers; guardians ad litem are often lawyers. Sometimes guardians ad litem are lay persons, for example, with the CASA program.5 Many, if not most of these persons are hardworking and conscientious.
1. Appointment
It is not uncommon for an evaluator/guardian ad
litem to be appointed via nomination or suggestion.6
With this situation, attorneys can and do advocate
for the appointment of evaluators/guardians ad litem
whose views are compatible to their cases. For
example, if a father claims that the mother is
alienating him from the child, the father's attorney
might suggest evaluators known to find alienation
determinative.
©COPYRIGHT 2006 BY THE NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC., A RESEARCH GROUP COMPANY
DIVORCE LITIGATION
with the parents and the children.
In some courts, it is permissible for attorneys to
contact evaluators/guardians ad litem prior to appointment. Such contact can be ostensibly to verify availability. Its real purpose may be to "test the waters" regarding one's case. If the reaction is favorable, the attorney will move forward to
advocate appointment. If the reaction is
unfavorable, the attorney may look elsewhere.
Certain attorneys also tend to work with certain
evaluators/guardians ad litem. In other words, they
develop business relationships. With these
circumstances, the person appointed can be pre-
aligned to one side.
2. Investigation
Once appointment is made, the lobbying campaign continues. Each side provides the evaluator/guardian ad litem with information including multiple level hearsay.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem also typically meet
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may contact third
parties. They may also conduct or commission psychological (profile) testing for the parents or the children.7
3. Report
The results of the investigation, any
psychological testing and recommendations of the
evaluator/guardian ad litem are typically
summarized in a report filed with the court.8 In
these reports, the evaluator/guardian ad litem may
or may not rely on applicable law. This
phenomenon has been documented in at least one
reported decision. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d
239, 242 at fn. 2 (Vt. 1995) (describing survey
results).9
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may also rely on their own personal, social or cultural values. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. states:
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Editor in Chief . Brett R. Turner, Esq.
Executive Editor . . . . Laura W. Morgan, Esq.
Assistant Editor .. David M. Cotter, Esq.
Circulation . Anne de Angelis
DIVORCE LITIGATION (ISSN 1050-141X) is published
monthly by National Legal Research Group, Inc., a Research
Group Company, 2421 Ivy Road, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906; (800) 727-6574. Send address
changes to DIVORCE LITIGATION, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906. Our e-mail address is
DivLit@nlrg.com; our website is http://www.nlrg.com.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative
information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent
person should be sought. From a Declaration of Principles jointly
adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a
Committee of Publishers.
Editorial Board
Paul J. Buser, Esq. ... Scottsdale, AZ
Albert L. Cohn, Esq. . . . Saddle Brook, NJ
Robert T. Hinds Jr., Esq. .. Littleton, CO
Albert M. Bonin, Esq. .. Denver, CO
Dr. Cheryl Karp . . . . Tucson, AZ
Leonard Karp, Esq. . . ... Tucson, AZ
Richard Orsinger, Esq. . . .. San Antonio, TX
James J. Podell, Esq. ... Milwaukee, WI
Peggy L. Podell, Esq. . . . Milwaukee, WI
Bernard Rinella, Esq. . . . Chicago, IL
Robert G. Spector, Esq. ... Norman, OK
Carolyn S. Thompson, Esq. . . ..Oklahoma City, OK
John A. Turcotte Jr., Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
Michael C. Walther, Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
54
DIVORCE LITIGATION
When an evaluator recommends [a child's
placement] we are learning not about the
relative capacities of the parties but, instead,
about the relative values of the evaluators.10
4. Trial
By the time of trial, the evaluator/guardian ad
litem is in the position of defending his report and
recommendations. In states where the guardian ad
litem files a brief, he is in the position of defending
the brief.
Factors encouraging this phenomenon include the need of the evaluator/guardian ad litem to maintain his reputation, to thereby gain more appointments.11 He may also be concerned that the judge will reduce his fees if his recommendation or brief does not prevail.12
At this point, the evaluator/guardian ad litem's recommendations can become more strongly stated, i.e., more "black and white". The recommended parent may thus be portrayed as more clearly "good" and the other as more clearly "bad." But the reality may be in the middle, i.e., that like all of us, neither parent is perfect.
At trial, the evaluator/guardian ad litem typically testifies about his report and recommendations. This testimony typically includes hearsay previously provided by the parties.13 Repeated yet again, its substance can become grossly distorted—like a story repeated multiple times as part of a children's "telephone game."14
Evaluator/guardian ad litem testimony can also
include opinions on credibility.15 The author has
seen as a basis for such opinions, a parent's
psychological profile, for example, that a parent has
an "elevated lie scale." The author has observed
such testimony to be extremely prejudicial.16
The above situation is quite different from the
admission of an investigator's testimony in other
contexts. For example, an investigator in a criminal
trial would not be allowed to testify as to his or her
recommendations regarding conviction, as to
hearsay, or as to his or her opinion on witness
credibility.17
C. Judicial Reliance on Evaluators/Guardians
Ad litem
Most judges perceive evaluators/guardians ad litem as neutral investigators or advisors.18 Evaluator-psychologists can be held in especially high esteem.
With this status, the reports and
recommendations of an evaluator/guardian ad litem
can become the factual and legal standard for trial.
The burden of the non-recommended party is thus
to disprove a factual and legal standard. The burden
of the recommended party is merely to provide
corroboration for the standard. In Gilbert, 664 A.2d
at 242, the Supreme Court of Vermont found such
burden-shifting so unfair as to require reversal.
A related problem is the legitimization of
improper evidence through the evaluator/guardian
ad litem. In one record reviewed by this author, the
evaluator testified that the mother's family was
"manipulative" and dishonest. On cross-
examination, the evaluator conceded that as a basis
for her opinion, she was relying on unsigned written
statements provided by the father. Had the father
sought to admit these statements through himself,
they would have been viewed as hearsay, lacking
authenticity and self-serving. But admitted as they
were through the evaluator, their thrust
(manipulative/dishonest) was instead perceived as
fact. Such "fact" was then incorporated into the
court's decision; the child was removed from the
mother's primary care.
55
DIVORCE LITIGATION
With the perceived neutrality of
evaluators/guardians ad litem, their positions are often determinative.19 But as described above, evaluators/guardians ad litem are not neutral. Once they make their recommendations, they are in the position of defending them; they have conflicts of interest including concerns about their future appointments and fees.
D. Reforms
The poor quality of custody evaluations has been reported in the literature.20 Proposed reforms have ranged from making changes designed to improve their quality, to their complete elimination.21
Perhaps the most common approach has been to establish evaluation standards. In Washington State, for example, there are now court rules that require guardians ad litem to maintain documentation that substantiates their
recommendations.22 Minimum standards have also been imposed through case law. See, e.g., Patel v. Patel, 555 S.E.2d 386, 390 (S.C. 2001).23
Another approach has been to redefine the role of
the guardian ad litem as a lawyer for the child.
With this approach, the guardian ad litem does not
make a recommendation, but instead provides his
position via a brief. As noted above, this approach
is already used in some states. It is also promoted
by the ABA's "Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases," which
call for the appointment of a "Best Interests
Attorney."24 The Best Interests Attorney does not
act as a witness or make reports and
recommendations.25 He files briefs and makes
arguments.26
In Wisconsin, guardians ad litem have this role.27
Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth
report that these persons nonetheless function like
traditional guardians ad litem, i.e., they in effect
56
give reports and recommendations.28 A similar
phenomenon has been noted in New York. There is
a "recurring problem" that courts expect the
attorney for the child to give a recommendation.29
The concept of the Best Interests Attorney is, regardless, flawed. He represents the child's best interests, which is the ultimate issue before the court. There is the potential for the court to be usurped, or to at least not consider the evidence as carefully because he has already made the best interests determination.30
The conflicts of interest described above also continue to exist. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney has concerns about his future appointments and fees. Once he submits his brief, he is in the position of defending it. There are also problems with the evidence. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney relies on hearsay.31
E. Evaluators/Guardians ad Litem Should
be Eliminated from Child Custody
Proceedings
Another way to look at the use of
evaluators/guardians ad litem is that they act as a filter or prism between the court and the evidence.32 They are like "spin doctors." They tell the court what it sees, which can make a difference as to the court's perception.33 The court's normal decision-
making function is distorted so that children are harmed. Attorney Richard Ducote states:
[I]n domestic violence and abuse cases,
where courts are even more eager to
appoint GALS, children are frequently
ending up in the custody of the abusers
and separated from their protecting
parents. This tragedy does not happen
in spite of the GALS, but rather because
of the GALS.34
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
makes a similar point regarding the CASA program:
[W]e conclude that the only real
accomplishment of CASA is to
encourage the needless removal of
children from their homes.35
The distortion of the court's decision-making
ability cannot be rectified by reforms that leave the
filter of the evaluator/guardian ad litem in place.
The only reform that will eliminate the problem of
the filter is the elimination of the filter itself.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem must be eliminated
from child custody practice.
F. Conclusion
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are often hard working and conscientious. There are, however, fundamental problems with their role. They cause the court's normal decision-making function to be distorted. Wrong decisions are made.
Court-appointed evaluator and guardians ad litem must be eliminated from child custody practice—for the sake of the children.
Endnotes
1. Margaret Dore is an attorney in private practice
in Seattle, Washington. Her published decisions
include: In re Guardianship of Stamm, 91 P.3d 126,
133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing due to the
improper admission of guardian ad litem
testimony), and Lawrence v. Lawrence, 20 P.3d
972, 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (use of the
"friendly parent" concept in a child custody case
"would be an abuse of discretion"). Lawrence was
nationally recognized. See, e.g., Wendy N. Davis,
Family Values in Flux, 87 ABA Journal 26
(October 2001). Ms. Dore is a former law clerk to
the Washington State Supreme Court and the
Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked
for the United States Department of Justice. She is
Vice Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA
Family Law Section. She was nominated for the
2005 Butch Blum/Law & Politics "Award of
Excellence." She is a graduate of the University of
Washington School of Law. She has an M.B.A. in
Finance and a B.A. in Accounting. She passed the
C.P.A. examination in 1982. Further information
about Ms. Dore and her practice can be viewed at
www.margaretdore.com.
This article is based on: Margaret K. Dore,
Parenting Evaluators and GALs: Practical Realities, King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, December 1999.
2. See, e.g., Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 ("In both
guardianship and custody cases, the role of the GAL is the same: to investigate and supply information and recommendations to the court . . .").
3. See Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R.
Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child
Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial
System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 255, 271, and 277, fn. 106 (1998)
(describing the guardian ad litem's role in
Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot testify
themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
57
DIVORCE LITIGATION
4. See, e.g., Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at
255, fn. 2.
5. The Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) was founded by a Seattle judge. See www.nationalcasa.org/htm/about.htm. There are more than 900 CASA programs in operation
throughout the country, which are also known as Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Programs. Id.
6. See, for example, Wash. Rev. Code 26.12.177(2)(a) (2005) ("The parties may make a joint recommendation for the appointment of a "guardian ad litem . . .").
7. Cf. Margaret A. Hagen, PhD, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Regan Books, Chapter 8 (1997); and Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 857 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (fourteen psychological tests performed on parents, seven psychological tests performed on children).
8. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 278, ¶ 3.
9. A similar issue is reported in the Comments to the Washington State Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules, as follows:
Apparently GALs are not following statutory requirements, nor are the courts consistent in enforcing them.
GALR 2, Washington State Bar Association Comment, § (p).
10. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., "The Medicalization of Judicial Decision-Making", The Elder L. Rep., Vol. X, No. 7, February 1999, p. 3, ¶1, last line.
11. Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case of Abolition," 3 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 106, 146 (2002):
58
One of the particularly stealthy problems of
GALs is the conflict of interest issue. This
most commonly occurs when a GAL fights to
keep a child in the custody of a parent
previously endorsed and exonerated by the
GAL, despite mounting proof that the parent
is indeed abusive and the GAL erred. . . . In
such instances, GALs have forcefully opposed
the introduction of new abuse evidence and
instead have increased the blame on the non-
abusive parent. . . [T]he GAL hopes to avoid
any judicial finding that suggests his or her incompetence and jeopardizes future lucrative GAL appointments.
12. Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy
Hollingsworth make a similar point. Lidman and
Hollingsworth, supra at 302, ¶ 2. See also,
Margaret A. Hagen, supra at 207-08.
13. Cf. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
14. Cf. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d 239, 243 (Vt. 1995) (describing the guardian ad litem's facts as "double or triple hearsay when reported").
15. Id.
16. Cf. Marriage of Luckey, 868 P.2d 189, 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) ("the use of profile
testimony is unfairly prejudicial"). See also, State
v. Carlson, 906 P.2d 999, 1002-03 (Wash. Ct. App.
1995):
[No] witness may give an opinion on another witness' credibility. . . . An expert opinion [on
credibility] will not "assist the trier of fact" .
. . because there is no scientific basis for such
an opinion, save the polygraph, and the
polygraph is not generally accepted as a scientifically reliable technique. (footnotes
omitted).
17. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
DIVORCE LITIGATION
18. Cf. Stamm, 91 P.3d at 129, quoting Fernando
v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (the guardian ad litem acts as a "neutral advisor to the court").
19. See Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 297, 2d ¶ ("[m]ore often, . . . [t]he judge merely confirms the guardian ad litem's decision").
20. See, e.g., Dana Royce Baerger, et al. A
Methodology for Reviewing the Reliability and
Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations, 18 J. Am.
Acad. Matrim. Law., 35, p. 36 ("Concern regarding
the generally poor qualify of [child custody
evaluations] has prompted some commentators to
suggest an end to the use of [evaluations] in divorce
proceedings"); Timothy M. Tippins, Custody
Evaluations-Part I: Expertise by Default?, N.Y. L.
J., 7/15/03, p. 3, col. 1, Conclusion ("If the custody
recommendation is little more than a personal value,
judgment, intuition, or an educated guess, rather
than a conclusion compelled by reliable and valid
scientific research, it should not be received"); and
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 301 ("Soon
thereafter . . . [the parents] learn that this guardian
ad litem is a mere mortal getting information from
here and there, frequently not verifying anything .
. .").
21. See, e.g., Matrimonial Commission Report to
the Chief Judge of the State of New York, Hon.
Sondra Miller, Chairperson, February 2006,
(www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/matrimonialcom missionreport.pdf), p 46 ("Proposed reforms from many different sources have ranged from eliminating the use of forensics altogether to instituting changes that will insure the quality and proper use of the reports . . ."); and Ducote, supra at 115 ("Guardians ad litem must be abolished in private custody cases . . .").
22. The Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules
(GALR) were adopted by the Washington State
Supreme Court in 2001. See GALR § 2(p) and
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_
rules.list&group=sup&set=GALR.
23. See also, Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 (limiting the admissibility of guardian ad litem testimony to that which is helpful under ER 702); and Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 531, 311-12 (Neb. 2004) (reversing because the guardian ad litem had been allowed to testify as an expert).
24. The Best Interests Attorney" is defined as a
"lawyer who provides independent legal services
for the purpose of protecting a child's best interests,
without being bound by the child's directives or
objectives." American Bar Association Section of
Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases, p. 2, §
II.B. (Approved by the American Bar Association
House of Delegates, August 2003)
(http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/aba.standards.pdf#s
earch='ABA%20Standards%20of%20Practice%2
0for%20Lawyers%20Representing%20Children').
25. Id., p. 3, § III.B.
26. Id., p. 6, § III.G.
27. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271, and
277, fn. 106 (describing the guardian ad litem's role
in Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can
make arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
28. Lidman and Hollingsworth state:
The Wisconsin courts' opinions have an
exasperated tone as they repeatedly reiterate
that these guardians ad litem must perform
lawyer-like functions: they can examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual
material in reports. Trial courts, parents'
59
DIVORCE LITIGATION
attorneys, and guardian ad litem-lawyers have
been chastised for "lapses" such as:
permitting the guardian ad litem to file a
"report" twenty days after the close of trial; or
allowing the guardian ad litem to file a
preliminary report and make an oral report to
the court after closing arguments. But
Wisconsin appellate courts do not reverse for
these lapses. Instead the reviewing courts characterize preliminary reports as briefs and
oral reports as arguments. (Footnotes
omitted).
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271.
29. Matrimonial Commission Report, supra at 43.
30. Cf. C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745, 749 (Pa.
2001) (the trial court's reliance on the guardian ad
litem constituted "egregious examples of the trial
court delegating its judicial power to a non-judicial
officer"); and Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772,
777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ("The overarching
problem in this case is that the trial court effectively
60
delegated its judicial authority to the parenting
coordinator").
31. See e.g., ABA Standards of Practice, supra at § V.E.
32. Cf. Small Justice: Little Justice in America's
Family Courts, Education Supplement, p. 6,
Intermedia Inc., Seattle WA 2001 (describing
evaluators and guardians ad litem as a filter). See also http://www.intermedia-inc.com/title.asp?sku= SM03&subcatID=29.
33. Id.
34. Ducote, supra at 135-36 (footnote omitted).
35. National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, press release, p. 1
(http://www.law.capital.edu/adoption/news_cases/ documents/NATIONAL_COALITION_response. pdf#search='Caliber%20%26%20Wexler%20%26 %20CASA%20%26%202122006'); see also
http://www.nccpr.org/.
Bill refocuses child-welfare laws
Bill refocuses child-welfare laws
Monday, January 11, 2010 2:55 AM
By Rita Price
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
When child-protection workers are called to investigate, they follow a law that focuses on findings of abuse, neglect or dependency.
"We go out and figure out who to blame," said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. "That's not always what's best for the child."
Allen said that's why, after more than six years of study, Ohio child-welfare advocates are pushing for an about-face in the old protection laws.
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would replace the existing model with a "Child in Need of Protective Services" statute.
The CHIPS proposal lists seven categories of circumstance -- including harm by exposure to substance misuse or a lack of health care -- in which the child could be ruled in need of protective services.
Existing law focuses on whether there has been abuse or neglect of a child, or whether the child needs to be dependent on the state because the parent is unable to care for him or her.
"It's really changing the thinking from parental punishment in the court system to the needs of the child in the civil system," said Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in the Discovery District.
Proponents say the new definitions in House Bill 371 would make it easier to get help for children and would create more consistency among Ohio's 88 Children Services agencies.
Or the 500-page bill might reverse a welcome trend in which the number of Ohio children in out-of-home care has dropped by more than 40 percent since 2001, one critic says.
"The very act of calling so many possible symptoms and scenarios to the attention of front-line workers is likely to prompt a surge in abuse and neglect cases and a spike in foster-care placements," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Arlington, Va., wrote in an e-mail.
"And that means this bill also is a budget-buster."
Wexler said current law already allows "almost anything imaginable" to be considered abuse or neglect.
"There is not a parent in Ohio who wouldn't be at risk of losing her or his child to foster care at some point under the provisions of this bill, were a caseworker inclined to take that child away," Wexler wrote.
Supporters say the proposal should do the opposite. They call it a heavily researched attempt to reduce foster placements, and to remedy problems that have been debated -- and cited by federal overseers -- for years.
"I think this will give us a cleaner guide to the situations that warrant child-enforcement action," said Eric Fenner, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. Fenner served on the Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee that examined the need for new child-welfare laws.
"I also think parents will feel better about our having to be more descriptive, to give more explanations," he said. "It gives people a stronger position to challenge our decisions."
St. Clair said the legislation would keep kids safer because their condition, not an abuse finding, is paramount. For example, current law can exempt corporal punishment that results in harm, such as bruises, that would be considered abuse if someone other than a parent did it. Under the new proposal, that exception is eliminated because the focus is simply on whether the child is harmed.
A young girl who has been forced to watch sexually explicit material on television or the Internet might not be a "victim of sexual activity" under current law, St. Clair said, but she could be a "child in need of protective services."
The seven categories that allow for protective services under the proposal are physical, sexual or emotional harm; harm from exposure to substance misuse; and the lack of necessary health care, legally required education or care or supervision.
None would replace the criminal provisions that allow for prosecution of abusers or go soft on those who hurt children, Fenner said.
Fewer than 15 other states have similar "child in need" statutes, and half of those address delinquency instead of protection, St. Clair said.
"This has been years and years in the making," she said. "It really is groundbreaking in its detail."
To read more about the legislation, go to http://www.ohiochildlaw.com/.
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/11/copy/CHIPS.ART_ART_01-11-10_B1_I0G8VJQ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Monday, January 11, 2010 2:55 AM
By Rita Price
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
When child-protection workers are called to investigate, they follow a law that focuses on findings of abuse, neglect or dependency.
"We go out and figure out who to blame," said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. "That's not always what's best for the child."
Allen said that's why, after more than six years of study, Ohio child-welfare advocates are pushing for an about-face in the old protection laws.
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would replace the existing model with a "Child in Need of Protective Services" statute.
The CHIPS proposal lists seven categories of circumstance -- including harm by exposure to substance misuse or a lack of health care -- in which the child could be ruled in need of protective services.
Existing law focuses on whether there has been abuse or neglect of a child, or whether the child needs to be dependent on the state because the parent is unable to care for him or her.
"It's really changing the thinking from parental punishment in the court system to the needs of the child in the civil system," said Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in the Discovery District.
Proponents say the new definitions in House Bill 371 would make it easier to get help for children and would create more consistency among Ohio's 88 Children Services agencies.
Or the 500-page bill might reverse a welcome trend in which the number of Ohio children in out-of-home care has dropped by more than 40 percent since 2001, one critic says.
"The very act of calling so many possible symptoms and scenarios to the attention of front-line workers is likely to prompt a surge in abuse and neglect cases and a spike in foster-care placements," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Arlington, Va., wrote in an e-mail.
"And that means this bill also is a budget-buster."
Wexler said current law already allows "almost anything imaginable" to be considered abuse or neglect.
"There is not a parent in Ohio who wouldn't be at risk of losing her or his child to foster care at some point under the provisions of this bill, were a caseworker inclined to take that child away," Wexler wrote.
Supporters say the proposal should do the opposite. They call it a heavily researched attempt to reduce foster placements, and to remedy problems that have been debated -- and cited by federal overseers -- for years.
"I think this will give us a cleaner guide to the situations that warrant child-enforcement action," said Eric Fenner, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. Fenner served on the Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee that examined the need for new child-welfare laws.
"I also think parents will feel better about our having to be more descriptive, to give more explanations," he said. "It gives people a stronger position to challenge our decisions."
St. Clair said the legislation would keep kids safer because their condition, not an abuse finding, is paramount. For example, current law can exempt corporal punishment that results in harm, such as bruises, that would be considered abuse if someone other than a parent did it. Under the new proposal, that exception is eliminated because the focus is simply on whether the child is harmed.
A young girl who has been forced to watch sexually explicit material on television or the Internet might not be a "victim of sexual activity" under current law, St. Clair said, but she could be a "child in need of protective services."
The seven categories that allow for protective services under the proposal are physical, sexual or emotional harm; harm from exposure to substance misuse; and the lack of necessary health care, legally required education or care or supervision.
None would replace the criminal provisions that allow for prosecution of abusers or go soft on those who hurt children, Fenner said.
Fewer than 15 other states have similar "child in need" statutes, and half of those address delinquency instead of protection, St. Clair said.
"This has been years and years in the making," she said. "It really is groundbreaking in its detail."
To read more about the legislation, go to http://www.ohiochildlaw.com/.
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/11/copy/CHIPS.ART_ART_01-11-10_B1_I0G8VJQ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)