|
ABUSE/NEGLECT PETITION CASES
DCF requested an end to p.s. for the two younger children, and of course we agreed. However, DCF also requested a 6-month extension of p.s. for the older child. At a case status conference, I convinced the Atty. General to convince DCF that this was nonsense. Reluctantly, DCF backed down, and we all agreed on a 3-month extension of p.s. without requiring a contested hearing. As part of the court order, a hearing was set in two months to review if the 3-month p.s. should end as scheduled, or should be extended even further. Then the fun began. A month after the agreement, and a month before the scheduled hearing, I wrote to DCF and asked if it had any adverse information on my clients, and any reason why it would not end p.s. as scheduled. DCF did not answer. I sent three follow-ups, and asked the child’s lawyer to follow up also, but there was no response. Finally, on the day of the hearing, DCF bagged me with a memorandum saying that it would move for an extension of p.s. It listed several reasons, primarily that the child remained disturbed and maladjusted. It quoted the child’s psychologist, psychiatrist, and teacher. The only problem is that the memorandum was bogus. I personally contacted the psychologist, psychiatrist, and teacher, and all said that the child was fine, the parents were doing well, and most emphatically, DCF involvement should end. I also contacted a therapist who was omitted from the memorandum, and she said the same. In fact, the teacher “quoted” by DCF told me that DCF had never even spoken to her! I subpoenaed these witnesses into court, and wrote a blistering memo attacking the good faith of the social worker. The child’s lawyer supported us also. As trial was to start, DCF backed down; but not before attacking me viciously in open court. All of this would have been avoided, of course, had the worker simply spoken to the experts in question and heard their current opinions. The parents, of course, were forced to expend thousands of extra dollars on lawyer’s fees and subpoena fees for the witnesses, who still had to cancel other appointments to meet the subpoenas that turned out to be unnecessary. My belief is that we had a particularly vicious worker in this case, one who actively disliked attorneys, and a management still resenting the fact that it had been talked into lowering the prior p.s. request in the first place. Literally thousands of DCF dollars, which of course is taxpayer money, were wasted on sheer vindictiveness. It is true that many parents and guardians are less than honest; but sometimes it is the other way around. It is frightening to contemplate what might have happened. DCF might have moved to extend p.s. yet again, and would have driven this couple crazy, to the point where Bob might have lost his temper again. The kids could have been seized, and we would have a real nightmare on our hands. All because of failure to be reasonable.
Postscript:
Fortunately, this situation is unlikely to be repeated. The vicious social
worker in question was apparently spoken to and has not pulled such a stunt
since. Further, nowadays, if I got no responses to my follow-ups, I would
go higher in the chain of command, even to the Commissioner if necessary.
Also, I urged Bob and Karen to consider a civil rights action, due to the
worker's intentional false statements, but they had been through enough and
declined. Thus, while ancient history in a sense, this case is a
perfectly accurate description of how some DCF workers operated when they
thought that they were immune from the Constitution. In theory, it could
happen again.
JASPER But things looked good. Martina had a good DCF social worker, she went to parenting classes, and she kept her home neat. Her companion was cooperative also. DCF decided to return the child in a month, and all appeared well. A success story in the making. Then suddenly, the DCF social worker changed. It was a standard office reassignment; common enough in a bureaucracy, and legal, but not thoroughly fair to the client. The new social worker was reasonable, not great, but her supervisor was a coward, afraid to take any chances. And his supervisor, the p.s. (program supervisor) was known as the “TPR Queen” of the office. The supervisor and p.s. panicked. They decided to reverse the prior decision and not return the child. Further, they decided not to tell me, knowing what would happen. They stonewalled and stonewalled. Finally I filed a motion in court to compel DCF to cooperate. In court, the social worker actually produced a “letter” that she said she had mailed to me, which “explained” everything. I was dumbfounded. I never got any letter, we are very careful in this office, and the worker never explained why she had failed to respond to numerous follow-ups for information. The worker had actually lied openly to the Judge. The Judge, by her expression, knew it, as did the Asst. Attorney General. But nothing could be done. I admit that I was unprepared for this contingency; not that it would have mattered. The worker was so stupid that she actually produced her “copy” as an original on DCF letterhead. She hadn’t even bothered to print the “letter” and then run off a copy to conceal her chicanery. Probably she was in the middle of a coffee break and didn’t have the time. The Judge asked why the original, and not her file copy. She mumbled something about wanting to be authentic; it was sickening, worse than Communist Russia. Three months later, after constant agitation, the child was returned. The couple took the hint and moved out of state with the child. I know from other sources that they are now doing well. This perjury has stuck in my craw. I realized that nothing could or would be done about it. I realized that the worker lied because she was ordered to lie. From that moment on, I have looked at bureaucracy in a different light. Fortunately, for the record, 95% of social workers would not do this. But this woman apparently believes that she did nothing wrong; and if she becomes a manager some day, she will doubtless expect others to cover up for her also. Anyone who thinks that professionals with suits and ties cannot be crooks had better think again. I shudder to imagine what would have happened had we not pushed DCF: probably an eventual TPR of the child “in his best interests”.
Abbie is a kindly and hard-working woman. She had a daughter who, unfortunately, had mental problems. The daughter chose a life of drugs, crime, and abusive men; and DCF quite properly removed her children. Abbie came forward to raise one child, Melody, five years old. Melody and Abbie were bonded anyway, Abbie had a spotless record, and public policy favors relative placement if possible. All was set, and then one thing happened: a social worker noticed that Abbie had a 10-year-old son who was autistic and was going to special schools. The worker challenged Abbie, saying that she could not ensure Melody’s safety while an autistic child was also in the house. Abbie exploded. She was a simple and honest person who had always fought for her son every step of the way. Now, she reasoned, instead of being commended for her actions, she was being punished. As usual, her anger at the State worker only made matters worse, and DCF decided that Melody could not be placed with Abbie. If Melody’s termination went through, then she would be adopted by strangers. Abbie also tried to intervene in the Juvenile Court. The Judge postponed the matter, but Abbie did not understand and asked. The social worker lied and told her that the motion had been denied! Abbie was devastated. Fortunately, Abbie had a friend who had heard of my work with DCF, and she called me. I discovered that the intervention motion was to be heard in a few weeks. We secured letters from six people, including a former social worker, teachers, and health care professionals, that Abbie and her autistic son were doing fine, and that there was no problem. We also secured letters describing Abbie’s bond with Melody. These letters were presented to the Court, the Attorney General, and Melody’s lawyer. Then three wonderful things happened: Melody’s lawyer supported us on the spot; the Judge granted Abbie’s intervention over DCF’s objections; and DCF suddenly did a complete turnaround and agreed to support Abbie’s adoption of Melody. On the face of it, this was a no-brainer. Not really any more complicated than a simple refinance transaction with one mortgage to pay off. And yet this child Melody might have been scarred for life because a faceless, cowardly, angry bureaucrat let her prejudices and her pique interfere with her duty. Side Note: I said that Melody’s lawyer supported us right away. In fact, he did more than that: he told me that he wondered why this was an issue at all, since DCF should have supported Melody’s adoption by Abbie in the first place. I thanked him. And yet, it had not occurred to him to fight for this on his own, because he would have had to challenge DCF (at impossibly low State-paid rates) on behalf of a grandmother who had not then bothered to secure a lawyer.
DCF visited and the parents let them in. They knew nothing of lawyers and rights. They were, however, incredibly indignant that the discipline that they had been taught all their lives was now being questioned by the State. They were hostile and arrogant to the social worker, and an unfortunate tone was set. DCF retaliated by filing a petition and hauling them into Juvenile Court. Then they called me. There was really very little to the case, but DCF persisted. An assistant attorney general who was particularly hostile to the parents was assigned to the case. She insisted that they have separate lawyers, on the grounds of “domestic violence”, even though the parents themselves viewed events as only a minor spat. The Judge agreed. Ricardo simply could not conceal his disdain for DCF, despite my admonitions. That only prolonged the case. Finally, we got DCF to agree to drop its plans to have the children committed, and instead to settle for protective supervision. When the term of protective supervision was up, DCF moved to extend it on a number of trivial grounds. We objected. And two wonderful things happened. First, the children were appointed one of the best lawyers in the system. It was good luck. She studied the case, visited the kids, spoke to the parents, reviewed the records, and made it clear that she thought DCF was now doing more harm than good. Whether their intervention was initially justified or not, it was now time to move on. Second, the judge normally hearing the case was out that day, and a different judge presided. He had happened to serve in the military, and was stationed in Ricardo and Emily’s country of origin for several years. He knew the culture and respected it. He quickly recognized that this was not a neglect or abuse case; just a matter of American culture shock. Protective supervision ended, DCF was out of the family’s lives, and the allegedly abused child is now happy and successful in college. The other kids are fine. DCF has a serious and important mission. That mission is compromised by vendettas against persons who are not deferential enough to it. Normal discipline is not child abuse; and yet these kids could have been taken away and permanently scarred over a cultural misunderstanding. Where, one wonders, is the diversity?
Jennifer used substances (alcohol and cocaine) during her pregnancy. She did go to a methodone clinic, with limited success. The baby was born suffering from the effects of substance abuse withdrawl, and required constant care. The baby’s father was an illegal immigrant. In addition, there were credible reports of domestic violence, and Jennifer had been involved with abusive men before. It did not look good. In fact, it could hardly have looked worse. DCF removed the baby under an OTC. However, by one of those unexpected miracles, DCF allowed the baby to remain at the hospital with the mother for a few days, until it got stronger. Jennifer was certainly on an express train to termination of parental rights (TPR). Her mother looked in the phone book and called me. I went to the hospital on a Saturday morning, and we began to work together. Jennifer’s family pledged financial help, and has been faithful ever since. It was not easy. Jennifer continued to struggle with substances. She denied involvement with the father, but he kept showing up. However, Jennifer was determined to beat the odds. With the DCF social worker’s help, we got Jennifer placed in a special program in Eastern Connecticut. She would live in a group home, get treatment, and eventually the baby could be placed with her for reunification efforts. It helped that Jennifer and I went to all administrative conferences at DCF and kept up the pressure. Also, we had an outstanding social worker. Nevertheless, the DCF goal remained: TPR and adoption. We would not give up. Slowly, Jennifer straightened out her life. Her mother helped her out considerably. The Eastern Connecticut program was good, but it did not allow Jennifer the opportunity to work. DCF found another program for Jennifer in Hartford which would help her to get work and would complete the transition. She would still get the needed counseling at the Eastern Connecticut program. However, the Eastern people objected. They stated that they could not counsel Jennifer properly unless she lived there full time. It was both a Catch-22 and a bureaucratic turf war. I wrote letters to everyone at the Eastern Connecticut facility and to DCF. We would not let up on this nonsense. Finally, DCF arranged to secure the needed counseling for Jennifer in Hartford. The baby’s lawyer remained uninvolved. He never even saw the baby, let alone observed the mother and child together. He did say that he would file a motion to revoke the commitment, and then simply neglected to do so. Interestingly, this lawyer once hosted a Conn. Bar Association class telling lawyers how to deal with DCF. Sorry I had to miss it. Jennifer continued to get counseling and medication management. When she failed one drug test, we were called in to DCF, and the supervisor read her the riot act – quite properly. The problem stopped. The baby was returned to Jennifer when he was 10 months old. Jennifer lives with her mother, and things are going reasonably well. DCF continued to visit and provide support. The baby is thriving; and the father has not been a problem. Jennifer is working, getting her GED, and has apparently straightened herself out. I see Jennifer and the baby, and he is obviously happy and healthy. The case is an enormous personal gratification. The family is grateful, and they continue to pay monthly, in a payment plan amount that they can afford. Jennifer’s shortcomings are obvious, and no one denied them. She needed a chance and got one. It is safe to say that hundreds of people in her shoes got no chance, and had their kids permanently removed, because they tried to fight DCF and other bureaucracies with no help. Jennifer is the type of case that brings honor to the social work profession also.
Rita, in truth, did not help her own cause. She had learning disabilities. She continued to live at home even after being warned by DCF to leave the home. She was even suspended from school for being in the lavatory with a boy. Rita was on the fast track to TPR. Her court-appointed lawyer was simply not involved. Rita’s family was devastated. They claimed that there was absolutely no abuse. Later, Rita agreed that she had made up the story; and it is impossible to tell what the truth really was. The family, which loved the granddaughter, was denied visitation; which is positively devastating to grandparents. Rita herself got very little visitation. The family came to see me. They did not have much money, but we settled on a payment plan; which they have kept for the most part. DCF had set Rita up with various service providers, including support groups and a therapist. She did not always attend faithfully. We pressured her to go, and she did. We worked with the service providers and passed along their information to DCF. Gradually Rita gained more confidence in herself, got her GED, and was able to hold a job. Luckily, she had an excellent social worker. We worked well together and continued to encourage Rita. The family was finally granted limited visitation with the granddaughter, after extended efforts, and all went well. Rita’s own visitation went well, and the evidence was clear that her daughter was bonded to her. Rita took parenting classes and got back into the mainstream. We attended every case status conference and administrative case review. We made certain that the child’s lawyer was aware of the situation. We simply refused to allow Rita to fall through the cracks. The threatened TPR was never filed. Rita is due to get her daughter back shortly. Suppose this hadn’t worked. With any luck, the foster or adoptive family would have permitted Rita to see her daughter, who was clearly bonded to her. But there is no guarantee. It is absolutely true that TPR is needed in some cases. There are parents who simply cannot be helped. But it is also true that if a parent is given a chance, they will come through in most cases. That chance should include a lawyer who is fighting for their rights.
Postscript: I wrote
a written commendation to the DCF Commissioner on this social worker, as I have
done for others. In Court, I gave her a verbal commendation on the record.
The Judge said that he had heard that several times about this worker; she is
the best. So, luck is involved, as it is in much of life. What is
sad is that DCF can be extremely unforgiving of any mistakes that a person has
made; while almost never apologizing for its own mistakes.
BARNEY AND PHYLLIS
Naturally, the hospital called DCF. Any of the above
three theories, plus either or both parents themselves, could have been the
cause of the injury.
The next time you wonder about how your tax dollars
are spent, remember this case. |
|
©2008 The Law Offices of Michael
H. Agranoff
|