Substantiation Cases

Substantiation Cases
Atty. Michael H. Agranoff

JAKE AND FRIEDA
This case reads straight out of Kafka. DCF would stoutly deny the facts as I present them, and would maintain that I exaggerated and twisted; except, of course, that DCF will not comment or provide corroborating details on its cases.

Jake and Freida are a working-class couple. They live in a rural area and enjoy a country lifestyle reminiscent of Huck Finn days. They live modestly, and have three happy, healthy, well-adjusted boys. Jake and Freida are not educated, and it shows; but they are good people and good parents.

Each parent was charged with medical and physical neglect of each of their three children, ages 5, 6, and 9. Thus, a total of 12 charges. Specifics included:

All three kids have amblyopia (lazy eye), which can lead to blindness, and the parents are doing nothing to correct the problem. The mother refused to take the kid to an ophthalmologist. In other words, they will let their kids go blind.
The 6-year-old is anemic, because his mother gives him too much milk, despite being warned against that. In other words, mother is an uncaring, ignorant person.
All the kids have dental disease. In particular, the 9-year-old’s mouth was a “dental disaster”. Also, the baby had no top teeth due to bottle rot. Yet the parents refuse to do anything. In other words, they will let their kids’ teeth fall out and allow them to grow up with gum disease.
The kids have dirty faces.
The kids have no health insurance. The mother had been referred to the HUSKY program, but deliberately failed to utilize it.
The parents totally minimized the kids’ medical problems.

This is right out of Oliver Twist. It is hard to imagine any decent person reading the above and not getting angry. How can parents be like this?

And even if some facts are exaggerated, there must be some truth to it. After all, where there’s smoke, there’s fire, correct?

The problem is that none of it was true. Yet it took the parents 21 months of aggravation, and thousands of dollars in lawyer’s fees, to clear their names.

Here is the story. Admittedly, this case represents the system near its worst, yet the story is not unique. The good news, at least, is that the parents were eventually cleared, which is more than many parents can say.

The boys were regularly taken to a medical office that had about half a dozen physicians, and they usually saw Dr. Jones or Dr. Smith. There was never a problem. The parents were cooperative, and always brought the kids in when they got a reminder card.

On one visit, however, neither of these physicians was available, so they saw Dr. Brown, a female physician newly-arrived to Connecticut and determined to do the right thing.

That’s when the trouble began.

Dr. Brown misunderstood prior medical reports. Also, because it was obvious that the parents were uneducated and lower-middle-class, she assumed that they were indifferent to their children’s welfare. Remarkably, it never occurred to her to actually ask Dr. Jones or Dr. Smith about the family. She simply began badgering and bullying the family to do certain things, and when they did not respond as she wished, she called DCF.

Dr. Brown would never have acted in this Hitlerian a manner with an upper-middle-class family.
One of the joys of being an American is that we think we are superior to other nations. We are tolerant and diverse, whereas others as narrow and reactionary.

New Englanders, in particular, tend to think that they are superior to Southerners, who practice discrimination, which we of course do not.

It is a total farce. Dr. Brown’s actions were completely discriminatory and totally illogical. Yet she would stoutly deny that she did anything wrong. What nonsense!

Needless to say, the parents were not pleased when a DCF worker showed up at their door, unannounced, and declared that they were neglectful of their children. As usual, the worker did not say that the parents did not have to let her in, and did not say that they could have a lawyer present. Matters were not helped when the worker asked the children if they had been “touched in bad places.” A shouting match ensued, and that was enough to prejudice the worker against the parents. She took her dislike out on the parents with the incredible allegations as listed above.

The parents were substantiated for child neglect. They hired an experience criminal defense lawyer, who finally had to admit to them that he was out of his depth. The parents then hired me.

Here, in a nutshell, is what the DCF substantiation hearings revealed:

An optometrist with 32 years of experience testified that, despite the claimed diagnosis, his extensive examination revealed that the kids did not have lazy eye. Further, although an M.D. had diagnosed one child with 20/50 vision, the actual truth was 20/25 uncorrected. He explained that M.D.’s typically look to surgery, while optometrists look to treatment; and no surgery was needed in this case.
Further, he testified that lazy eye does not necessarily lead to blindness. The social worker who testified that she “heard this” was just plain wrong; not to mention lazy at not checking her facts.
Further, he testified that all the children were doing well, visually. It must be noted that this optometrist was angry enough at DCF that he testified free of charge; restoring my faith in human nature in the process.
A different pediatric ophthalmologist (M.D.) wrote a letter, explaining that there was nothing remarkable in the children’s eye exams. He agreed that any recommended surgery for one child was more cosmetic than anything else, and certainly was not medically required or guaranteed to succeed.
A dentist, who had been practicing for 31 years and was a specialist in pediatric dentistry, testified that while there was tooth decay on one child, it was impossible to tell the cause. It could have been the bottle, or snacks, or bacteria, or something else. There was no evidence of any abuse. In any case, the treatment was going well.
He further testified that the other children were fine, that the mother always brought them in and was concerned, and that he had no worries.
This dentist also testified free of charge, and expressed concern at DCF’s handling of the case. As to the dentist who wrote that one child’s mouth was a dental disaster, he politely disagreed. The parents later characterized that dentist as a “wild man” concerned only with generating fees. I saw no reason to waste their money by calling that dentist to court; and DCF, interestingly enough, did not subpoena him either.
Dr. Smith, one of the physicians who regularly saw the boys, was called to testify. He stated that the kids were up to date with their shots, and that the mother was always cooperative. He emphasized that the eye problems were under control; any surgery was recommended only, not required; and that he never said that lazy eye led to blindness.
He disagreed that the mother “minimized” problems. He never found it necessary to call DCF to get the mother to act. In fact, he, the regular physician, did not even know that DCF had been called, until he got my subpoena!
When asked if Dr. Brown, in his opinion, would have called DCF under these circumstances on an upper-middle-class family, he paused, thought a while, and said “I don’t know.” Remarkably enough, DCF never called Dr. Brown, the original complainer, as a witness! That is too bad; I would have had a field day in cross-examination.
The social worker who took over the case after the initial “investigation” testified that the family was always cooperative, that the kids were never unruly or unkempt, and that the parents did not minimize issues. She was glad to close the case, and did so along with the recommendation of a parent aid.
Even the investigative social worker testified that the home was adequate, there were no drug abuse or domestic violence problems, and no prior history with this family. She had not spoken to the optometrist and dentist referred to above.
The parents acknowledged bad relations with the investigative social worker. That worker, however, stoutly denied that her quarrels with the family led to her substantiation of 12 charges of child neglect.

The final decision reversing the substantiations was a model of calm judicial reasoning. It included such phrases as:

It cannot be found that [parents’] actions were unreasonable in light of their own limitations, cognitive and financial, and the lack of evidence as to clear directions and/or orders given by medical providers.
There was no evidence that any of the medical providers involved prior to this referral ordered follow-up treatment for any of the children or made specific referrals to other providers.
A case with seemingly many problems was closed within six months time, not due to non-cooperation, as is so often the case, but due to [parents’] willingness to cooperate with service providers.

A copy of the final decision went to DCF honchos, lawyers, the DCF Training Academy, the investigating social worker, and others. I can only hope that this investigator learned a little more decency.

In a classic “Law and Order” episode, a therapist who misdiagnosed and mistreated a child, causing untold misery for a family, was suspended from practice and arrested. This, of course, is pure entertainment. Neither the investigating worker nor Dr. Brown were investigated, suspended, or arrested.

These parents still might have lost, for lack of money, if the optometrist and dentist, outraged at DCF’s conduct, had not volunteered their time. These professionals will get no public service awards from The Hartford Courant, but they richly deserve them.

THOMAS
Thomas and Arlene had a child together. They were young, inexperienced, and decidedly naive. Nevertheless, they were raising the child.

Arlene’s mother, Toni, was less than pleased with this arrangement. Toni kept filing police reports that Thomas was battering Arlene and was abusing the baby. Toni was a strong-willed woman, and the police and DCF regularly humored her by investigating and finding nothing. At one point, Toni became so aggressive that she was arrested; and from that point on, she just became mildly obnoxious.

However, Toni filed another report that Thomas was abusing the baby, sexually, and this time things were different. DCF was called, and sexual abuse was substantiated. The Police were also called, also investigated, and found nothing. Nevertheless, DCF reviewed the case internally and upheld its substantiation. Arlene was ordered to allow Thomas to have no contact with the baby, upon threat of permanent loss of her baby.

Thomas appealed his substantiation of sexual abuse, but soon realized that he didn’t know what he was doing. At that point, Thomas and Arlene called me.

A substantiation hearing had been scheduled in three weeks, not nearly enough time to prepare. I got a continuance of a few months, assembled case materials, spoke to witnesses, and started to get ready. What was striking is that every single bit of evidence, including the police investigation, the medical evidence, and the fact that Toni had coached the child, pointed against sexual abuse, except for one: DCF claimed that it had a videotape from a recognized child sex abuse clinic, clearly showing that the child had stated that she was sexually abused by Thomas.

To bolster the claim, DCF included a written report from a clinician attesting to the child’s disclosures. I asked to see the actual videotape itself. After some hemming and hawing, DCF agreed to provide me with a copy of the tape.

As the time grew near, the stalling began. First the DCF paralegal referred me to a DCF staff attorney. Then the staff attorney referred me to a police detective. Then the detective spoke of staff shortages and other bureaucratic problems. Finally I wrote to DCF and said that their problems and procedures did not concern me; I wanted the tape if it was to be used as evidence in the substantiation hearing, and I would issue a subpoena if necessary.

A few days later, a modern-day miracle occurred. DCF wrote to me that it had “reviewed” the file again, and was reversing the substantiation on its own: no hearing needed!

Obviously, DCF had actually looked at the tape and saw that it did not say what it was supposed to have said. Since all the other evidence was against them, DCF quickly dropped the matter.

DCF of course denied this, saying that it was a simple internal review. The problem with that argument is that DCF does not conduct internal reviews after it has already conducted one internal review and scheduled a hearing. It was pure puff and embarrassment.

Not so fast, said Thomas. He wanted to pursue charges against the clinician who had “attested” to the disclosure of sexual abuse. But then he ran out of money, and the case was not pursued.

So today, Thomas is cleared of all criminal and DCF charges. His life is somewhat back to normal. It is incredible that his life would have been ruined by a totally baseless charge; and not one person in DCF expressed the slightest remorse.

ARTHUR AND SUSAN
Many writers have commented on the fact that parent and child roles are often reversed in our society. Popular columnists like John Rosemond complain that the kids are in charge, and state that parents must reclaim their authority. The case of Arthur and Susan shows that that is not always easy to do.

Lately I have had several cases in which kids threaten to go to DCF if they do not get their way, or if they have arguments with their parents. Of course, kids can and should go to DCF, or a teacher or other authority figure, if they are being abused or neglected; but a disagreement with your parents is not “neglect.”

Nevertheless, more and more kids are finding out that they have leverage over their parents through DCF. Kids are more sophisticated than adults think, and word gets around. This, of course, is an unintended consequence of our natural desire to enact stronger child protection laws.

Arthur and Susan had two children, Stephanie and Roland. Roland, age 13, was a reasonably normal kid. Stephanie, age 14, had always been difficult and defiant, what would be called a “hell raiser.” As a kid, Stephanie screamed and cried and had fits whenever she didn’t get her way, far beyond that of normal children. As she grew older, her defiance turned to vulgar verbal abuse and then pushing and shoving. Not uncommonly, Arthur tended to give in to his little girl, and Susan became the bad guy.

The parents did what they could, and finally enrolled Stephanie in a therapy center. Then Stephanie got arrested for assault and went to Juvenile Court.

Stephanie was doing much better, but was still subject to house rules, which she did not like. She then disclosed to her Juvenile probation officer that her mother, Susan, was drunk all the time, hit her and yelled at her, and was generally abusive; while her father, Arthur, sat around and did nothing.

DCF was called to investigate. DCF came to the house unannounced, scared Susan to death, and as per usual did not advise her to get a lawyer. DCF discovered that Susan did have a drinking problem, albeit one that she admitted and was being successfully treated for. That was enough, and DCF substantiated both parents for neglect; and recommended Susan (but not Arthur) for placement on the Registry.

We appealed. I went to the Juvenile Court and reviewed Stephanie’s delinquency file. It contained a smoking gun: the report of a psychologist, making it clear that the child had numerous psychological issues and was not abused or neglected in any meaningful sense by her parents. It was a case of a difficult child blaming her failure to thrive on her parents, and taking advantage of their vulnerabilities.

I asked the parents why they hadn’t made me aware of this report. The answer: they didn’t know about it. They had heard that there was a psychological evaluation, but were told that they could not see it. That, of course, is what happens when parents are in the Juvenile Court system (this time for delinquency) without a lawyer.

I wanted to use this report, but it was confidential. I had to go to Juvenile Court and get an order from the Judge to use the report at the DCF hearing. Even then, the Juvenile Prosecutor objected, and the Judge ordered that I could indeed give the report to DCF, but not to the parents. I complied. Of course, in its investigation, DCF ignored the psychological evaluation completely.

We also produced a witness from IFP (Intensive Family Preservation) Services, who stated that the parents were extremely cooperative, and were helping Stephanie learn how to cope. The parents, while not blameless, were not neglectful, abusive, or deserving to be on the Registry. Of course, in its investigation, DCF ignored IFP completely.

I shall quote in part from the final decision:

"It is recognized that [Susan] had an alcohol problem...[It] is also correct that [Arthur] minimized her alcoholism. But just because a person is an alcoholic does not, by itself, mean that the person is denying his or her child proper care and attention...As expressed by the psychologist, the arguing and drinking may have contributed to the child’s difficulties, but the child’s behavior is best seen as a result of ongoing family issues."

Granted, this is not an earth-shattering case. But it shows how a difficult family situation can be made worse by DCF investigators considering only the easy facts and not doing a real investigation.

When DCF helps, it does a great job. But a facile investigation, to clear paper off someone’s desk, does no one any good.

Without a lawyer, of course, the mother, and possibly the father, would have been substantiated. It is less likely, but possible, that the mother would have been stigmatized on the Registry.

This case also illustrates a modern-day dictum: if you have trouble with your kids, and can’t solve it, call a Juvenile lawyer before you call DCF.

ELLIS
Ellis loved working with children. He was a teacher’s aid, and also worked at a children’s safe house. He was planning to finish college and become a regular teacher.

(A safe house is a temporary shelter for children, from babies to teenagers, who have been removed from their homes and have no foster home or residential placement at the time).

One day, at the safe house, a trip was organized to take the kids to a museum. As it turned out, Ellis drove a van with 5 kids inside; and another worker (Emily) was also in the van, sitting in back.

When they arrived at the museum, Ellis exited the van. One young kid then starting beeping the horn, and Ellis had to stop him. While this was going on, the other kids and Emily exited – presumably.

As it turned out, one teenager, who had been in the back with Emily, did not get out. She stayed in the van, apparently curled up on the floor. No one saw her. She got out a few minutes later, when all the others were inside. Someone saw her in the parking lot, the police were called, and the trouble began.

The safe house director fired Ellis and Emily that night. DCF also investigated, and a substantiation of child neglect would have ended Ellis’s chances of becoming a teacher.

Ellis was petrified and hired me. We were prepared for DCF, and gave the investigator a complete and detailed chronology of events, plus a recap of Ellis’ training, and the safe house procedures. It turned out that there were no procedures for who was in charge in a situation of multiple staff on a van. Ellis simply assumed that Emily, who was in back with the children, would see that the children got out. Emily assumed that Ellis, who was senior to her, would ensure that all was well. The safe house director, realizing his own administrative error, fired them both as a cover-up.

Ellis was NOT SUBSTANTIATED for child neglect. He retained his ability to become a teacher. Having an objective lawyer who was not emotionally involved in the case turned out far better than arguing with DCF on his own. Plus, DCF obviously knew that we would appeal if we lost.

BERNARD AND ELIZABETH
It is possible that some readers of this web site will think that I am paranoid in advising you not to speak to DCF without a lawyer. “What next? Don’t go into a package store without calling a liquor lawyer?”

Some will think that I am just trying to use fear to drum up business. And I wouldn’t blame them; it’s a common advertising technique, and lawyers as a class do not have a stellar reputation.

And yet experience bears out the warning. Just ask Bernard and Elizabeth.

Two little girls, ages 2 years and 4 months, were being taken from their parents. The parents had severe drug and mental health problems, and DCF planned to terminate their parental rights (TPR). By all accounts, the TPR was entirely justified. Meanwhile, the girls would be placed in foster care.

The paternal grandmother (mother of the father of the girls) was frantic. She knew that her brother and his wife were solid people, loved children, had a wonderful home, and might be a placement resource. Her brother’s name was Bernard, and she called him with the story.

Bernard had an adult son by a prior marriage. He had recently married Elizabeth, and they had a comfortable home together. They were blue collar people, moderately educated, of high moral integrity, and had many loving relatives and friends.

Elizabeth herself never had children, but she had always babysat for kids of her sisters and friends. In one case, she had practically raised a nephew whose parents had had problems. But by now, it was too late for her to have children of her own.

Bernard discussed the matter with Elizabeth, and they readily agreed to take the girls if DCF would permit it. The DCF worker came out almost immediately, evaluated the home, evaluated the couple, and performed the necessary steps. In a few weeks, the girls were placed with Bernard and Elizabeth. Nothing was official, of course, but it was “clearly understood” that if TPR happened, then the girls would be put up for adoption with Bernard and Elizabeth. This was in October, 2004.

An excellent job by DCF. The system was working.

All went very well. Bernard and Elizabeth were not young. They were in their early 50’s. Bernard continued to work, and Elizabeth stayed home with the girls. By all uncontradicted accounts, they were great foster parents to their great-nieces.

Christmas 2004 went well. Too well, perhaps. Elizabeth had a thought and discussed it with Bernard. It was a thought that she must now be regretting bitterly.

Elizabeth thought that since things were going well, and the couple was extraordinarily happy, it would be even better if they could adopt a little boy about the age of the older girl. Bernard agreed. So Elizabeth called DCF and was referred to a social worker.

The social worker told Elizabeth that they did not have a boy, but they had a wonderful little girl. She was Caucasian, healthy, friendly, and doing well in school. Plus, it would just be a temporary placement. Elizabeth and Bernard, not wanting to appear ungrateful for the opportunity, agreed.

After the child was placed, the couple found out that she was the foster kid from Hell. She had been physically and sexually abused, and was aggressive, disrespectful, mean, and a chronic liar. She was extremely jealous of any attention paid to other children. Yes, she was in therapy, but no one had been able to help her. She had already disrupted at least 5 placements within 2 years. It was sad; this innocent child had been abused, and now needed a therapeutic foster home, and had only a fair chance of success at that.

But the social worker had not been able to find a suitable home. And when Elizabeth called, she must have thought that she had died and gone to Heaven. Here was a golden opportunity to get a problem off her desk, and help clear her in-tray.

Over the months, Elizabeth and Bernard told several DCF workers that the child needed to be placed in a home where she was the only child, and could get the attention she craved. They did not use the term “therapeutic foster home” because they were not aware of it; but DCF was surely aware of it. DCF did ask the couple if they wanted the child removed, but they said no, as they were not quitters and wanted to do the right thing; plus, as they were told, it was “just temporary”.

Elizabeth and Bernard received no training whatsoever in dealing with child victims of sexual abuse. Not that it would have helped; even the experts are stumped. They attended two sessions with the child’s therapist, and reported that he had absolutely nothing to offer, other than “try this; try that.”

Elizabeth and Bernard received sympathy from several DCF workers, but little else. Everyone passed the buck to someone else. The truth, as Elizabeth and Bernard did not realize at the time, was that there was little or no help to give. They were to be the designated scapegoats for the State’s failure to help this poor innocent child.

It did not go well. The child was impossible, and Elizabeth spanked her a few times. These were light spankings, and that fact was uncontradicted. Nevertheless, DCF foster parents must sign an agreement that they will do no physical punishment. The child told about the spankings, and there was an investigation.

When DCF investigated, as per usual, they did not tell the couple beforehand that they could have a lawyer present. The couple was scared to death, and made additional comments that they later regretted. As a result, DCF pulled not only the difficult child, but the two great-nieces from the home; then substantiated Bernard and Elizabeth for neglect and abuse and recommended them for placement on the Child Abuse Registry.

It should be noted that the DCF investigation was cursory to the point of absurdity. DCF did not investigate any friends or relatives of the couple, who could (and later did) testify to their worth as foster parents; DCF did not contact the lawyer for the two great-nieces, who could (and later did) testify as to the bond between the girls and the foster parents; DCF did not consider any psychological evaluation of the girls, to see if they had actually been “damaged” by the foster parents, as claimed. DCF, in short, did the minimum, and washed its hands of the matter; with no meaningful consideration of the further disruption caused to these girls.

At this point, the parents called me.

We appealed the substantiations and Registry placement, and had 1-1/2 days of hearings at DCF. In the meantime, DCF, surprisingly, decided to reverse the substantiations against Bernard; but the substantiations and Registry stood against Elizabeth.

DCF did this because it had not a scintilla of evidence that Bernard had done anything wrong. Of course, that did not stop DCF from deciding to put him on the Registry initially. And further, DCF never advised him that he should contact an attorney; knowing that few people are aware of this right in DCF matters.

The hearing now solely concerned Elizabeth. The DCF Hearing Officer rendered the following decision: 4 of the 5 substantiations against Elizabeth were reversed. Only one substantiation remained, and she was taken off the Registry. This was a victory; ten substantiations and two Registry findings, reduced to one substantiation and NO Registry.

Sadly, we won the battle but lost the war. DCF filed TPR petitions regarding the two great-nieces. Bernard and Elizabeth tried to intervene in the TPR trial, but their motion was denied, even though the children’s attorney went to bat for them. DCF had found decent foster parents who wanted to adopt the girls, and the Court wanted to get the matter over with.

We still did not give up. Elizabeth and Bernard were out of money by now, so I handled the rest of the case pro bono. We pleaded with DCF to allow visitation of Bernard and Elizabeth with the girls; supervised if necessary. The matter was taken to a preliminary hearing in front of another DCF Hearing Officer. That Hearing Officer, fully aware of the facts, stated that she had no jurisdiction to force DCF to allow visitation, given the TPR; but she strongly suggested that they do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that she knew DCF had wronged this couple, and the children.

After a month of promises and nagging, DCF finally pronounced: no visitation; not in the girls’ best interests.

And we were done.

What is truly sad is that these fine and decent people simply wanted to adopt their great-nieces, and were well on the road with no opposition whatsoever. They were hoodwinked, by a social worker looking for an easy out, into taking the Child from Hell that they were totally unequipped for. As a result, they are in great danger of never seeing their great-nieces again.

Do you think that Elizabeth regrets making the phone call to get another foster child?

It is easy to argue that Elizabeth was wrong for breaking the spanking covenant. As O’Reilly says: we report, you decide. If ever there were a case where the punishment did not fit the crime, this is it.

In reality, Elizabeth and Bernard presented as uneducated simple people. There is no question that this worked against them. I have seen it time and time again, as have all DCF defense lawyers.

DCF, of course, is entitled to its version of the facts. But it will not present one. It never does.

Should this couple have called me to represent them when things appeared to be going well? when they first noticed that the child was difficult? when they reported problems and received no help from DCF? when the investigator came to the door? Who is to say?

The last e-mail I received from this couple speaks for itself. With names redacted:

"We would like to thank you for trying your best. We hate DCF for what they did to us and those two precious babies. They were able to physically take them away from us, but they can never take the memories and love we’ll always have for them away from us. It’s a terrible, terrible thing that they have the power to do this to people. Again, many thanks for everything you did."

I can’t honestly say that their appreciation made me feel any better.

It is interesting that people will tend to believe absolute nonsense, as long as it comes from the mouths of people in authority. It is a rather sad commentary on our education system.

Personal Note: The Opportunists Around Us

The gist of the Bernard and Elizabeth story is that the couple were victimized by an opportunistic social worker who saw a chance to solve a problem, and did not care who was harmed in the process. She took advantage of vulnerable people.

It is understandable that many readers will hesitate to believe that this could have happened. Of course, DCF will not respond with specifics; so I’m left with a sort of Ripley’s “believe it or not.”

Please, do believe me. This sort of thing does happen, and this particular horror story did happen. Opportunists take advantage of vulnerable people all the time, and it makes no difference if the opportunist is a white-collar professional in a good job. People are people.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The moral remains: if you are involved with DCF, get a lawyer to protect yourself.

Here is my own story regarding opportunists:

In 1984, I was a computer security analyst at a major area insurance company. The job was easy, but I was going nowhere. I liked to speak my mind, and that is not recommended in a bureaucracy. I looked for another job.

I wrote to my alma mater, the University of Hartford (UofH), included my resume, and asked if they had any suitable computer security analyst position open. Remarkably, in a few days, I received a telephone call from one Linda Fleit, a computer administrator at UofH. She wanted to talk to me. I thought I had died and gone to heaven.

I saw Linda, and she explained that her area was expanding, and there would soon be an opening for a Director of Computer Security. We chatted at length on business matters, and we got along amiably. She stated that with my record, I should have no trouble getting the job. No formal promises, but we understood that the expansion would be approved, and here I was.

She would get back to me. I thanked her profusely. As I started to leave, Linda said “By the way, UofH is sponsoring a conference on computer security in a few months. Would you like to speak? We can’t pay you anything, but it’s a good chance to meet people and get exposure.”

Would I speak? I couldn’t agree quickly enough. As a would-be teacher, I would have done it even without a good job in mind.

The weeks went by, and I prepared for my topic at the conference. Linda and I chatted on the phone every week or so, and she assured me that the new job was getting approved.

Conference Day came, and we all had a great time. Lots of people attended, I met some excellent speakers, and Channel 30 covered it. I actually got my 15 seconds of fame in a TV interview shown that night. As is usual, I learned more by speaking at the conference than many of the attendees did.

As I left, I noticed the conference brochure on a table. The front cover mentioned that there was a committee of seven people in charge of the conference. Linda was one of the seven. There were also seven speakers at the conference; myself and six others.

Instantly, I figured out what had happened. I hoped against hope that it wasn’t true.

But it was.

Immediately after the conference, the calls from Linda stopped coming. I would call her, a message would be left, but no calls would be returned. Finally, one day when I called, I was told that Linda no longer worked there.

I wrote to the President of UofH, who expressed regret, but said (understandably) that he had no idea what job I was talking about.

So I got scammed by an opportunist in a white collar. I myself have some experience in running conferences and meetings, and there is nothing worse than trying to get a good speaker, for free, who is also reliable. Apparently each of the seven committee members had been assigned to get one speaker. Linda, like the others, must have been facing the problem; and when my letter and resume to the UofH President were routed to her desk, she must also have thought that she had died and gone to heaven.

So, like the social worker in Bernard and Elizabeth, who saw an opportunity to get a problem child off her case load, using the ruse that the child was happy and healthy; Linda saw an opportunity to get a free and reliable speaker, and get the problem off her desk, using the ruse of an offer of a job that never existed. And neither cared about the harm their actions might cause.

Of course, I wasn’t harmed, which was the irony. I had a good time, and I appreciated the TV exposure (although it did nothing for my career). I would have done the speaking anyway, but of course Linda had no way of knowing that. As far as she could see, I was a totally vulnerable person: a man looking for a job and totally dependent upon her good graces.

The point is that, yes, unscrupulous opportunists do exist; and their education, training, professional status, and income is no barrier to unscrupulousness. Luckily, the consequences to me were minimal; to Bernard and Elizabeth, they were life-changing. Two beautiful children, well-loved and well-cared-for, lost forever.

How do some people live with themselves? Don’t ask me. I don’t have the answer.

Linda Fleit is now the President of a company called Edutech International, in Bloomfield, CT. The company web site touts its integrity and ability to turn things around. I’ll bet it does.

No one is exempt from scams. Forewarned is forearmed; protect yourself.

CHESTER
Chester’s parents are straight-arrow middle class professional persons, totally honorable and law-abiding. Chester graduated a local high school, has a fine girlfriend, works as an assistant coach at a high school, and is finishing his college degree. He also worked as a youth sports advisor and counselor at a local YMCA.

One day, a middle-school girl at the Y complained that Chester had used swear words, had inappropriately touched her, and had shown her naked pictures of his girl friend. That was enough for the Y to fire him; no hearing, no lawyer, no due process, nothing.

In our lawsuit-fearing society, the McCarthyite ideal has come true: the charge is as good as the proof. Of course, the Y would simply say that it couldn’t afford to take a chance. Sorry about your individual rights.

But it didn’t stop there. The police were called and DCF was called.

The police investigated and realized that there was nothing. There was no proof, no corroboration. No one else saw anything. This incident was totally out of Chester’s exemplary character. The girl had a troubled family life, and she was not credible. There was simply nothing to support probable cause for an arrest. The police did not even ask to speak to Chester.

DCF called Chester, however, said they were investigating, and asked to speak to him. This is perfectly proper for DCF to do. But Chester’s parents could not believe it. They were livid. The police had already cleared him, there was nothing to it, and he still had to be investigated. They called me, and we all met.

I had to explain to Chester’s parents that DCF is required to investigate, and that the parents should calm down. Rather than get angry or rant, we would assemble our evidence, and speak to DCF with my being present.

I wrote to the DCF investigator. She was very polite, and kindly agreed to the interview at my office. She would be there, along with a Dept. of Public Health licensing specialist (as they license the Y), and Chester and myself. His seething parents would remain in the office lobby.

We gathered our evidence and stated it in writing. Chester had an excellent school record, which we would produce. He had a history of responsible jobs, as a coach, store clerk, soup kitchen volunteer, and youth worker. He had no record of any kind. We identified specific references: teachers, other coaches, employers, family friends, and colleagues who had personally seen him working with children; and we would give DCF releases to speak to those persons.

This last item is extremely important and is often overlooked. DCF is not the police, and does not ordinarily speak to character witnesses that you mention. You have to press the point, and make it easy for DCF to contact the witnesses.

We freely admitted that Chester said one swear word under his breath; and noted that in this day and age, that hardly qualifies for a substantiation, let alone the Registry.

As to the charge of inappropriate touching, we not only denied it, but noted that the DCF investigation protocol contained absolutely no details. In effect, the girl made a statement, with no evidence, and Chester was fired on that basis. DCF surely should note that the lack of any detail whatsoever made the allegation suspect.

We similarly denied the insane idea that Chester showed naked pictures of his girl friend. The girl is very respectable to begin with, and would never have allowed such pictures at all. We made it clear that we would subpoena all these witnesses if necessary, and would do our best to confront, if not the accuser, then the Y personnel who allegedly interviewed her.

We maintained that the uncorroborated word of a possibly-disturbed child could not be the basis for a substantiation; let alone a Registry placement which could ruin this young man for life.

The DCF investigator and DPH licensing specialist interviewed Chester, and I was present. The interview was polite, professional, dignified, and thorough. Nothing was concealed. DCF and DPH were provided with a 5-page detailed document stating our position, including witnesses.

In a few weeks came the good news. All charges were UNSUBSTANTIATED. Chester was cleared.

He was still angry at the Y, and wanted to sue. Of course, that may work in the movies, but not in real life.

Would Chester have won without a lawyer? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

Here, it was just as important to keep his emotional parents out of it as it was to gather our specific evidence, present legal arguments, and let DCF know that we would aggressively present such evidence and argument at a hearing if necessary. Not many lay persons can handle that, especially with emotions running high.

Chester did the right thing. He called a lawyer, early on, and cooperated with the lawyer.

He and his parents, however, remained frustrated. They asked, “What can be done to stop such accusations in the future?” Sadly, I had no answer.

ELISE
Elise is poor and black. She does her best to care for three kids in the New Haven area. One day, the father of the kids came to the house and started a ruckus. The police were called. As in a hockey game, the cops simply arrested both of them.

Elise went to the Yale Law School for free help. The Yale clinic reviewed the facts, saw that she had done nothing but defend herself properly, and was well on the road to getting her case dismissed in criminal court.

Since there were kids present when the police came, the police called DCF. Here Elise was not so lucky. DCF filed substantiations against Elise for physical neglect of all three kids. Worse, they recommended her for the Registry! Elise brought the paperwork to the clinic, and was told that they would defend her against that also.

The public may have the impression, from TV, that Ivy League law school clinics are staffed by top-notch courageous lawyers who fight for the rights of helpless people. That happens once in a while, but it is hardly the usual case. Law school classrooms teach theoretical concepts, and in many cases the professors have not been in a courtroom in years, if at all. Clinics are intended to provide practical education in real world law, just as medical school clinics feature hospital rounds.

A professor is nominally in charge of a clinic, but often the professor delegates the work to a practicing lawyer who handles cases either pro bono or for a reduced fee. That was the case with Elise.

Elise had two students working on her case: a third-year law student (3L), who was in charge; and a second-year law student (2L), who was the assistant. The criminal case was routine, so the professor was uninvolved, and the practicing lawyer gave only a casual review.

The day for the DCF substantiation hearing approached, and the law students went to work. They consulted the practicing lawyer, who told them that he knew nothing about DCF, but would be glad to review what they had found. As the day neared ever closer, the students realized that they were totally clueless. They checked the statutes and Practice Book, read the DCF web site, called DCF for help, but got nowhere. The 3L, a bright student, went on the internet and found me. She called for help, and I agreed.

I showed them how to get a continuance in the case, and e-mailed them a form. It worked. Then I told them to send me the entire file. I would review it and meet with them for two hours; no charge. The 3L was grateful, the date was set, and she told me that she, the 2L, and the practicing lawyer would be there.

I got the file, and realized that they had absolutely no idea what they were doing. I could lecture for 2 hours or 20 hours; it wouldn’t help. So, rightly or wrongly, I did the case preparation work for them (it was a relatively easy case).

The meeting day came. The practicing lawyer did not show. The 3L and 2L were there, along with a first-year law student (1L).

I spent the first hour giving them a lecture on DCF defense in general, and substantiation defense in particular. It amazed me that none of them knew any of this, despite working on the case. Then I spent the next hour showing them what I had done on the actual case file, reviewing it, and suggesting how they should go about winning the case. I said that I would come to New Haven to sit in on the hearing, provided that I got the opportunity to address the Yale clinic that was handling this type of thing. (I hoped for mutual learning, and possibly to find a good intern or associate).

One surprising note: the 1L was the most impressive of the three students. She asked the best questions.

But that meeting was the end of our acquaintance. I never heard from them again. I wrote to the 3L, who said all was fine, and that was that. I wrote to the professor in charge and asked to meet him and speak to the clinic. He replied No, but if I happened to be in New Haven one day, he would be glad to have coffee with me.

This really happened. My feeling is that he was embarrassed that an institution such as Yale Law School could be so incompetent, considering what they charge for tuition.

So, an unusual story. I have no way of knowing the result, and whether or not Elise got off the Registry. I assume that she did. But I do know that going to unlicensed kids is as silly as going to unprepared lawyers.

THERESA
All families have squabbles, and these usually work themselves out in the fullness of time. Many people occasionally lapse in judgment, realize that, and go about their business. However, when DCF gets involved, a minor skirmish may result in career-threatening consequences.

Theresa is one of Connecticut’s heroes. She has been a public school teacher for over 30 years and has an unblemished record. She is the sort of person whom students remember when they get older, and wish they could properly thank.

Theresa’s son married a woman who had mental problems. Her son was not equipped to handle it. The couple had a baby. One day, the couple got into a loud argument, and the wife was threatening to harm the baby. The husband, rightly or wrongly, called Theresa for help.

Theresa came to the door, along with her husband and her daughter. The wife was holding the baby, who was screaming. The baby started crying for Grandma and holding out his arms as soon as she saw Theresa. Theresa went over to the baby and offered to take him. The wife screamed obscenities at Theresa and was continuing to act out of control.

Fearing for the baby’s safety, Theresa started to take him. The wife pulled away, and got accidentally scratched by Theresa in the process. The police were called, and the situation finally calmed down.

The couple is now in the process of getting a divorce.

DCF was also called. The DCF investigator properly interviewed the wife and the husband. Later, she interviewed the wife’s sister, who was not present during the incident. Incredibly, she did not interview Theresa, or Theresa’s husband and daughter, who were present during the incident. She concluded that Theresa should be substantiated for physical neglect of the baby, and recommended her for placement on the Central Registry.

In fairness to the investigator, she was influenced by the fact that Theresa had been arrested. The charges were later nolled. She defended her actions by saying at the Hearing that the wife’s statement, and the arrest, were enough for her to come to her conclusions. I must say that I have seldom seen such an incompetent investigation.

Theresa called me. We appealed, and a Hearing was scheduled. I presented virtually no defense to the Registry recommendation. The idea that a woman with an unblemished record, who was trying to prevent a dangerous situation for her grandson, was a danger to children at large, was laughable. The Registry recommendation was reversed, and Theresa’s teaching job is no longer in danger.

As to the underlying substantiation, the Hearing Officer wrote in pertinent part:

“[Theresa], her husband and their daughter all went to the home to try to help diffuse the tension between the child’s parents. When they arrived, [Theresa] attempted to remove [the baby] from the room. She reached out for the child, and the child’s mother pulled him away. At that point, [Theresa] should have retreated. Her continued intervention made the situation worse. However, her conduct does not rise to the level of neglect…This was an isolated incident.”

We had also presented evidence that the child was doing well, and was bonded to Theresa.

Everything that the Hearing Officer found was common sense. One hopes that the investigator will be less lazy in future investigations.

It is certainly possible, but not certain, that Theresa would have beaten the Registry without a lawyer. However, she might not have beaten the substantiation, which depended heavily upon careful gathering of all the facts, which the investigator had neglected.

DCF must surely have better things to do.