Albo Must Go.........
Delegate Dave Albo (R)Fairfax and chairman of the House Courts of Justice CommitteeRecently, Del. Dave Albo, Chair of the Courts of Justice Committee, was interviewed regarding a dispute over a Circuit Court Judgeship in the mostly Republican jurisdiction of Virginia Beach. In that article he was quoted as follows:Del. Dave Albo, R-Fairfax and chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee, said that "we pretty much let the local delegation decide" about the appointment of local judges."Portsmouth judge's reappointment could be in jeopardy," Virginia Pilot, Jan. 17, 2007We at Albo Must Go found this statement interesting. It was only two years ago that Del. Dave Albo personally intervened in the appointment of a Circuit Court judge in the City of Alexandria, overrulled the local delegation and tried to put his friend on the bench. What did Del. Dave Albo say back then?"We believe it's our prerogative to select who we want, in spite of the local delegation's wishes," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), a member of the House Courts of Justice Committee, which takes part in selecting judges.He wasinstrumental in choosing Fairfax lawyer Timothy Battle to be the House Republicans' nominee."House, Senate Part Ways on Court Seat," Washington Post, Metro, B6, March 6, 2004.Not one Democrat who is complaining now ever stood up when we were the minority and said that the system they used was unfair," said Del. David B. Albo(R-Fairfax), who has consistently said that it is his party's responsibility to have direct influence on judicial nominations, particularly in districts such as Alexandria that have Democratic majorities."Warner Makes New Pick for Circuit Court," Washington Post, Metro, B1 (June 8, 2004)Del. Dave Albo loves to wields power for the sake of maximizing his own power - not doing things in the best interest of the people. Whether it means voting to inflict political payback by keeping a well-respected moderate Republican education expert off William & Mary's Board of Trustees for endorsing a Democrat (retired Republican Delegate Jim Dillard) or keeping a labor community leader out of a cabinet appointment, Del. Dave Albo rationalizes abusing his own power to maximize he and the Republican Party's own partisan ends.Why doesn't the press ever mention this blatant hypocrisy in their reporting?Posted by George Mason at 1/19/2007 05:02:00 PM
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Criminal Justice and the Family Court System, If Any -
The Criminal Justice and the Family Court System, If Any
What passes for a system of criminal justice in this country is positively scary. We've all see the stories in which a guy is on death row, or serving life for rape or murder, and DNA evidence proves that he absolutely didn't do it. It makes you wonder how many other innocents are behind bars. If you've seen the system at work, you wonder a lot.
Some time back I wrote a column about Bruce McLaughlin, now in the Loudoun County jail after being convicted of sexually molesting his children. He got thirteen years, which is fine by me -- if he did it.
Briefly, he confessed to extramarital affairs to his wife, who thereafter suddenly discovered the abuse of his four children. Criminal charges followed. Medical evidence being lacking, the conviction rested heavily on transcripts of interviews, by Child Protective Services, of the children -- who said he did it. Well, sort of said he did it. Who actually said he didn't do it. Or said mommy said he did it.
I read the transcripts from CPS shortly after the original trial. They stank. As I said at the time, reporters aren't good at much, but they know a con job when they see it. Everybody tries to con journalists. You come to recognize tendentious, the coached, the craftedly deceptive testimony. Which the transcripts were.
Over and over, the transcripts of the interrogation of the children contain passages like this one:
Stribling [one of the interrogators]: "Is that something you remember?"
Nicholas [McLaughlin's son]: "I think."
Leigh [a cop]: "Do you remember it today?
Nicholas: "Huh?"
Leigh: When you're telling me right now, do you remember that happening?"
Nicholas: "Not really."
Or this. Leigh: "Let me see what else you have here. He had played with my penis. Tell me about that, do you remember that?"
Nicholas: "No. My mom told me that."
(Italics) His mom told him? (close italics) Coached, maybe?
Over and over, the kids say they don't remember being sodomized. Then, after insistence and leading by the questioners, with a suspicious consistency they say they do remember. Their testimony reeks of coaching. One, pushed, said McLaughlin had white pubic hair. No.
Curious about all of this, I got one of McLlaughlin's representatives to send me a transcript they made comparing an actual audio recording of the interviews to the transcrips the jury saw. At one point in it one of the kids twice says the children , ". . . came forward . . ." meaning told adults about the abuse.
Kids don't say, "I came forward." It's adult language. Interestingly, the phrase is omitted in the transcript that the jury saw. Don't let anybody tell you railroads are dead.
Now, why would CPS produce a deceptive transcript? Because child protective services tend to become highly adversarial. Just as defense attorneys and prosecutors become zealots, just as equal-opportunity watchdogs fill with people who see discrimination everywhere, those in CPS come to have a prosecutorial attitude. It isn't deliberate. They don't say to each other, "Let's imprison an innocent man." They merely find what the expect to find.
A conclusion: "The interviews with the children are flawed. They show evidence of suggestion on the part of McLaughlin's wife. They are not properly documented. They are loaded with leading questions ("Let me tell you what I think you're telling me . . .). There are many indications, especially in the interview with Nicholas, that, in fact, nothing is really remembered."
The foregoing paragraph isn't mine. It is from the decision of Michele Anne Gillette of the Virginia Department of Social Services who heard McLaughlin's appeal. She changed the finding from "Founded" to "Unfounded." She did it on the grounds that I noticed long ago, that she saw without difficulty, that you would notice if you read the transcripts. The word "fabricated" appears in her analysis.
It's nuts. A jury, listening to a prosecutor working for the state, found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the same state, as the Department of Social Services, determined the charges, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence doesn't constitute a reasonable doubt?
Why is McLaughlin in jail?
This could happen to me or you, gang. McLaughlin is a middle-class lawyer with an ugly divorce. False allegations of abuse of children are a tool of divorce law. In this case Mrs. McLaughlin ran away to New Zealand with the children (in violation of a court order), which makes investigation difficult. It could be any of us. This is how criminal justice works.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Psychologist charged with assault, child abuse at a Silver Spring Clinic in Washington
The president of Washington Assessment and Therapy Services was charged last month with assault and child abuse for allegedly striking a 12-year-old boy being treated at a Silver Spring clinic.
Several calls to Ronald D. Wynne, 71, a psychologist who lives in Kensington, were not returned. Other WATS employees referred questions to Wynne.
Police charged Wynne on May 24 with assault and child abuse after they were called that afternoon to search for a child missing from the WATS center at 8737 Colesville Road in Silver Spring.
While one officer arrived at the center, another officer radioed that the boy had flagged him down.
The boy told police that he had been in the clinic hiding from his therapist when Wynne found and grabbed him, according to the charging documents.
Wynne pulled the boy into his office and pinned him to a chair by his wrists, police said.
The boy yelled, ‘‘Get off me [expletive]” followed by a string of other curse words.
‘‘I’m your [expletive]?” Wynne replied and struck the boy on the right side of the head several times, according to the charging documents.
The boy kicked Wynne and left the building where he flagged down the officer, charging documents said.
WATS has a staff of more than 100, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and counselors to provide mental health services, according to the company’s Web site. It has offices in Germantown and Lanham, as well as Silver Spring.
WATS was one of the mental health clinics contracted by the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services to provide mental health treatment to young people, said HHS spokeswoman Mary Anderson. Its contract expired on Dec. 31 and was not renewed because WATS had not met all of the requirements on staffing, she said. The county paid WATS $58,800 for the counseling provided in 2005.
The Maryland Board of Psychologists received an anonymous call recently about the incident, but had not received a formal complaint, said the board’s investigator, Pat English.
‘‘We will be investigating, I can guarantee that,” English said.
The state board, which oversees mental health professionals in Maryland, has not taken any formal action against Wynne before, English said. Formal action could include suspension or revocation of a license to practice in the state.
English declined to say if any other complaints had been filed against Wynne. ‘‘If there had been complaints, that would be confidential,” she said.
Several calls to Ronald D. Wynne, 71, a psychologist who lives in Kensington, were not returned. Other WATS employees referred questions to Wynne.
Police charged Wynne on May 24 with assault and child abuse after they were called that afternoon to search for a child missing from the WATS center at 8737 Colesville Road in Silver Spring.
While one officer arrived at the center, another officer radioed that the boy had flagged him down.
The boy told police that he had been in the clinic hiding from his therapist when Wynne found and grabbed him, according to the charging documents.
Wynne pulled the boy into his office and pinned him to a chair by his wrists, police said.
The boy yelled, ‘‘Get off me [expletive]” followed by a string of other curse words.
‘‘I’m your [expletive]?” Wynne replied and struck the boy on the right side of the head several times, according to the charging documents.
The boy kicked Wynne and left the building where he flagged down the officer, charging documents said.
WATS has a staff of more than 100, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and counselors to provide mental health services, according to the company’s Web site. It has offices in Germantown and Lanham, as well as Silver Spring.
WATS was one of the mental health clinics contracted by the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services to provide mental health treatment to young people, said HHS spokeswoman Mary Anderson. Its contract expired on Dec. 31 and was not renewed because WATS had not met all of the requirements on staffing, she said. The county paid WATS $58,800 for the counseling provided in 2005.
The Maryland Board of Psychologists received an anonymous call recently about the incident, but had not received a formal complaint, said the board’s investigator, Pat English.
‘‘We will be investigating, I can guarantee that,” English said.
The state board, which oversees mental health professionals in Maryland, has not taken any formal action against Wynne before, English said. Formal action could include suspension or revocation of a license to practice in the state.
English declined to say if any other complaints had been filed against Wynne. ‘‘If there had been complaints, that would be confidential,” she said.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Virginia's Inbred Judiciary
Virginia's Inbred Judiciary
How can this happen? Why do judges in Virginia issue court orders that can make an innocent-enough person feel like the victim of a “hate crime” when some sensibly administered justice would have sufficed? This can happen to people in Virginia because the judicial selection and re-selection process is deformed and has created a judiciary that is inbred which is producing even greater deformity as judicial rulings deteriorate and as judicial respect--for the dignity and the resources of litigants--declines.
When legislative sessions close leaving judicial vacancies, circuit court chief judges must appoint district-level (juvenile district and general district) judges to fill the vacant posts. Circuit chiefs are also responsible for choosing lawyers to serve as substitute judges. Substitute judges and sitting district-level judges are more likely to be appointed or elevated by the legislature and the governor, when legislators are unable to agree, to a permanent seat either on district court or circuit court, if already a substitute judge, and circuit court, if already a district judge, juvenile or general, than non-insider status candidates. Judges for the appeals court and justices for the supreme court are generally recruited from the circuit bench, possibly even landing some of those judge-appointed substitute judges and judge-appointed district-level judges on Virginia’s highest courts. I have never completely understood how some of these promotions, or elevations, are decided.
Furthermore, I have noticed, when a judge advances to another court in mid-term, his or her interview is postponed, that is, delayed by the length of the term associated with that particular court: 8 years for circuit court, 8 for appeals and 12 for supreme. With the Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) program now cancelled by decision of the 2009 legislative session, “interviews,” known officially as “Judicial Interviews of Incumbents,” is the only screening mechanism in place, acting to protect citizen-consumers of legal services from defective judges. The event is annual and it really is Virginia’s ultimate oversight agency for the judiciary because even “Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission” board members must submit to “interviews.” But, and especially since most members of the general public do not go to “interviews,” it is mostly a “rubber-stamp affair.” Citizens, tragically, are skipping “interviews” because it is such a poorly promoted event, and sitting judges, apparently, are skipping “interviews” because jurists promoted before the end of their term slip through such a poorly designed system for screening them.
Incompetent Legislature
...
The General Assembly’s Courts of Justice Committee, under the tutelage of Mr. Albo, is derelict in its duty to appoint and re-appoint good people to the bench because: it has dumped a constitutional responsibility into the laps of circuit court judges (and the governor in those cases when legislators fail to fill judge vacancies at the circuit, appeals, and supreme court levels by close of session of the general assembly), it has junked the Judicial Performance Evaluation program, and it has routinely “qualified” candidates other judges handpicked for confirmation by the entire general assembly in “rubber-stamp affairs” known as “Judicial Interviews of Incumbents.” Though Mr. Albo this winter stated, “[S]omething we need to improve, is that it's too difficult [for members of the general public] to find out when judges are up for appointment and when [citizens] can speak," and, “[U]nless anyone comes to complain, judges usually get re-appointed,” he took no action to ameliorate the situation. Since telling a reporter for The Post 12 months ago exactly the 2008 selection process had been a “total disaster,” Mr. Albo has done an excellent job of showing the problem his back.
A referendum on retention election of state judges by the voters, if successful, would restore a reasonable and intelligent judiciary, improve judicial respect for the dignity and resources of litigants, and increase the likelihood of sensible court orders. Retention election would control for the ever-growing risk of killer-rulings that can make an innocent-enough citizen feel like the target of a “hate crime” because retention election interrupts judge-inbreeding. Retention election would eliminate legislator-commitment to not getting along at judge appointment time and cutting out public input, which encourage judge-inbreeding, because retention election removes the state legislature from any involvement in re-selection and gives the voters the final word on who gets to remain a judge.
The blind and sheltered re-appointment and confirmation of judges, many of whom were handpicked by other judges, simply is not creating a reasonable, intelligent and empathetic judiciary in Virginia. How can it? A judicial candidate, who was probably chosen by another judge, is “qualified” for re-appointment--without performance data, without public testimony, and without professional criteria to determine qualification--in a quiet “rubber-stamp affair,” that is, a candidate is subjected to a silly (Come see for yourself!) interview, lasting no more than 5 or 10 minutes, by a tiny panel of (trial) lawyer-legislators, then almost always breezes right through confirmation by an entire state legislature in yet another “rubber-stamp affair” that, like the silly interview, is nothing more than another formality.
If you agree the process is not “dumb, disgusting, and outright dangerous,” if you believe there is no emergency, you should stop reading now, click out and pray you never find yourself inside a court of law of this commonwealth. If, however, you find my information a wee bit disturbing then please let me know. I urge you also to tell your legislators--the delegate and the senator in your district--and maybe Mr. Rubin too. Send them your idea for a smarter, sounder, and safer judge re-appointment system in Virginia if you don’t like mine.
I propose amending the state constitution to allow the voters to decide in general elections whether to retain judges. I think we need a question on the ballot in November that will address the issue of inserting retention elections into the Virginia judge re-appointment, or re-selection, process. I hope you do too. I know that together we can stop the blind and sheltered re-appointment and confirmation of judges in Virginia and put sensible justice back into our courtrooms.
Public Input
...
You might be asking, What is a “retention” election? Let me clarify with some help from Mr. Litten who wrote in “Let the People Judge the Judges: Reforming Virginia's Judicial Selection Process”:
…The new judge then serves a trial period at the end of which the voting public, through the use of an uncontested “yes/no” retention election, decide whether or not he or she should continue service. If retained the judge goes on to serve a full term and is subject to retention elections at the end of each term.
And,
…Retention elections insert democratic principles into the [judicial selection] process by allowing the ultimate authority in this country, the people, to hold judges accountable while still avoiding the serious problems found in contested elections, such as possible conflicts of interest when contributors to a judge’s campaign appear before the judge in court. “In retention elections, judges run against their records, rather than against opposing candidates, which means that incumbents are at risk of losing their seats only if voters deem their records unacceptable.” Holding retention elections serves “to remind judges that they are judges, not legislators, and that their conduct in office is important. Elections allow citizens to evaluate the judges” while still freeing judicial candidates “from traditional partisan politics and fundraising” and “judicial decisions are more impartial because judges are in a secure environment to decide the cases in a neutral and fair manner.”
Mr. Litten explains that “judicial decisions are more impartial because judges are in a secure environment to decide the cases in a neutral and fair manner” when freed from fundraising, traditional partisan politics, and lawyer-legislators who confirm them and also appear before them in court. I agree. In our current system, it is understandable state judges can be less preoccupied and less concerned with how the public might measure their loyalty to “Black Letter Law” or the “Canons of Judicial Conduct” than how their decisions might play out in “House Room C” at interview time.
Judge Garland L. Bigley was fired, in 2006. She had boldly told her interviewers, “Yes, I sanction lawyers.” Chairman Albo and the other lawyer-legislators were unimpressed. The judge had given, as an example, the lawyer who inconvenienced a lot of people--people like you and me--by not showing up for trial. So she sanctioned him, she said. The legislature disqualifies, or does not confirm, one judge a year, roughly. I was sorry to see Judge Bigley go. The people of the 11th Judicial District had lost a good judge, I thought.
“[L]egislators can and do set their own criteria for determining whether a judge belongs in office,” we learn from Mr. Litten. We learn formal written judicial selection criteria do not exist in Virginia. I highly recommend his article.
The people of Virginia should demand from Richmond more separation between the legislative branch and the judicial branch in matters pertaining to the hiring and the firing of state judges and should see as normal, and urgent, more involvement of the electorate in the judge re-selection (re-appointment) process. It’s really a two-part issue: judge selection and judge re-selection (re-appointment). Retention election addresses the second half of this issue and is the first step toward a true Missouri Plan for Virginia. But Mr. Rubin says we must first amend (definition) the constitution to allow for the public input in judge re-selection (re-appointment) via retention elections.
...
The Question
I ask for your support in getting on the 2009 November ballot the following question:
“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to change the method of re-appointing state judges from confirmation by the legislature to retention election by the voters?
_ YES
_ NO”
Please show your support, or even lack thereof, by sending your comment, your vote, to:
YES.Judge.Retention.Election@gmail.com,
Or,
NO.Judge.Retention.Election@gmail.com.
And please share your viewpoint with your legislators (senator and delegate) when you share it with me. Why not also forward a copy to Counselor and Senior Advisor to the Governor Mark E. Rubin? Information on Mr. Rubin can be found below in my recent email message for him and his answer for me (which also prefaces this post).
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Mommy Go Bye Bye | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/mommy-go-bye-bye#ixzz1OgSGS2Rk
How can this happen? Why do judges in Virginia issue court orders that can make an innocent-enough person feel like the victim of a “hate crime” when some sensibly administered justice would have sufficed? This can happen to people in Virginia because the judicial selection and re-selection process is deformed and has created a judiciary that is inbred which is producing even greater deformity as judicial rulings deteriorate and as judicial respect--for the dignity and the resources of litigants--declines.
When legislative sessions close leaving judicial vacancies, circuit court chief judges must appoint district-level (juvenile district and general district) judges to fill the vacant posts. Circuit chiefs are also responsible for choosing lawyers to serve as substitute judges. Substitute judges and sitting district-level judges are more likely to be appointed or elevated by the legislature and the governor, when legislators are unable to agree, to a permanent seat either on district court or circuit court, if already a substitute judge, and circuit court, if already a district judge, juvenile or general, than non-insider status candidates. Judges for the appeals court and justices for the supreme court are generally recruited from the circuit bench, possibly even landing some of those judge-appointed substitute judges and judge-appointed district-level judges on Virginia’s highest courts. I have never completely understood how some of these promotions, or elevations, are decided.
Furthermore, I have noticed, when a judge advances to another court in mid-term, his or her interview is postponed, that is, delayed by the length of the term associated with that particular court: 8 years for circuit court, 8 for appeals and 12 for supreme. With the Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) program now cancelled by decision of the 2009 legislative session, “interviews,” known officially as “Judicial Interviews of Incumbents,” is the only screening mechanism in place, acting to protect citizen-consumers of legal services from defective judges. The event is annual and it really is Virginia’s ultimate oversight agency for the judiciary because even “Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission” board members must submit to “interviews.” But, and especially since most members of the general public do not go to “interviews,” it is mostly a “rubber-stamp affair.” Citizens, tragically, are skipping “interviews” because it is such a poorly promoted event, and sitting judges, apparently, are skipping “interviews” because jurists promoted before the end of their term slip through such a poorly designed system for screening them.
Incompetent Legislature
...
The General Assembly’s Courts of Justice Committee, under the tutelage of Mr. Albo, is derelict in its duty to appoint and re-appoint good people to the bench because: it has dumped a constitutional responsibility into the laps of circuit court judges (and the governor in those cases when legislators fail to fill judge vacancies at the circuit, appeals, and supreme court levels by close of session of the general assembly), it has junked the Judicial Performance Evaluation program, and it has routinely “qualified” candidates other judges handpicked for confirmation by the entire general assembly in “rubber-stamp affairs” known as “Judicial Interviews of Incumbents.” Though Mr. Albo this winter stated, “[S]omething we need to improve, is that it's too difficult [for members of the general public] to find out when judges are up for appointment and when [citizens] can speak," and, “[U]nless anyone comes to complain, judges usually get re-appointed,” he took no action to ameliorate the situation. Since telling a reporter for The Post 12 months ago exactly the 2008 selection process had been a “total disaster,” Mr. Albo has done an excellent job of showing the problem his back.
A referendum on retention election of state judges by the voters, if successful, would restore a reasonable and intelligent judiciary, improve judicial respect for the dignity and resources of litigants, and increase the likelihood of sensible court orders. Retention election would control for the ever-growing risk of killer-rulings that can make an innocent-enough citizen feel like the target of a “hate crime” because retention election interrupts judge-inbreeding. Retention election would eliminate legislator-commitment to not getting along at judge appointment time and cutting out public input, which encourage judge-inbreeding, because retention election removes the state legislature from any involvement in re-selection and gives the voters the final word on who gets to remain a judge.
The blind and sheltered re-appointment and confirmation of judges, many of whom were handpicked by other judges, simply is not creating a reasonable, intelligent and empathetic judiciary in Virginia. How can it? A judicial candidate, who was probably chosen by another judge, is “qualified” for re-appointment--without performance data, without public testimony, and without professional criteria to determine qualification--in a quiet “rubber-stamp affair,” that is, a candidate is subjected to a silly (Come see for yourself!) interview, lasting no more than 5 or 10 minutes, by a tiny panel of (trial) lawyer-legislators, then almost always breezes right through confirmation by an entire state legislature in yet another “rubber-stamp affair” that, like the silly interview, is nothing more than another formality.
If you agree the process is not “dumb, disgusting, and outright dangerous,” if you believe there is no emergency, you should stop reading now, click out and pray you never find yourself inside a court of law of this commonwealth. If, however, you find my information a wee bit disturbing then please let me know. I urge you also to tell your legislators--the delegate and the senator in your district--and maybe Mr. Rubin too. Send them your idea for a smarter, sounder, and safer judge re-appointment system in Virginia if you don’t like mine.
I propose amending the state constitution to allow the voters to decide in general elections whether to retain judges. I think we need a question on the ballot in November that will address the issue of inserting retention elections into the Virginia judge re-appointment, or re-selection, process. I hope you do too. I know that together we can stop the blind and sheltered re-appointment and confirmation of judges in Virginia and put sensible justice back into our courtrooms.
Public Input
...
You might be asking, What is a “retention” election? Let me clarify with some help from Mr. Litten who wrote in “Let the People Judge the Judges: Reforming Virginia's Judicial Selection Process”:
…The new judge then serves a trial period at the end of which the voting public, through the use of an uncontested “yes/no” retention election, decide whether or not he or she should continue service. If retained the judge goes on to serve a full term and is subject to retention elections at the end of each term.
And,
…Retention elections insert democratic principles into the [judicial selection] process by allowing the ultimate authority in this country, the people, to hold judges accountable while still avoiding the serious problems found in contested elections, such as possible conflicts of interest when contributors to a judge’s campaign appear before the judge in court. “In retention elections, judges run against their records, rather than against opposing candidates, which means that incumbents are at risk of losing their seats only if voters deem their records unacceptable.” Holding retention elections serves “to remind judges that they are judges, not legislators, and that their conduct in office is important. Elections allow citizens to evaluate the judges” while still freeing judicial candidates “from traditional partisan politics and fundraising” and “judicial decisions are more impartial because judges are in a secure environment to decide the cases in a neutral and fair manner.”
Mr. Litten explains that “judicial decisions are more impartial because judges are in a secure environment to decide the cases in a neutral and fair manner” when freed from fundraising, traditional partisan politics, and lawyer-legislators who confirm them and also appear before them in court. I agree. In our current system, it is understandable state judges can be less preoccupied and less concerned with how the public might measure their loyalty to “Black Letter Law” or the “Canons of Judicial Conduct” than how their decisions might play out in “House Room C” at interview time.
Judge Garland L. Bigley was fired, in 2006. She had boldly told her interviewers, “Yes, I sanction lawyers.” Chairman Albo and the other lawyer-legislators were unimpressed. The judge had given, as an example, the lawyer who inconvenienced a lot of people--people like you and me--by not showing up for trial. So she sanctioned him, she said. The legislature disqualifies, or does not confirm, one judge a year, roughly. I was sorry to see Judge Bigley go. The people of the 11th Judicial District had lost a good judge, I thought.
“[L]egislators can and do set their own criteria for determining whether a judge belongs in office,” we learn from Mr. Litten. We learn formal written judicial selection criteria do not exist in Virginia. I highly recommend his article.
The people of Virginia should demand from Richmond more separation between the legislative branch and the judicial branch in matters pertaining to the hiring and the firing of state judges and should see as normal, and urgent, more involvement of the electorate in the judge re-selection (re-appointment) process. It’s really a two-part issue: judge selection and judge re-selection (re-appointment). Retention election addresses the second half of this issue and is the first step toward a true Missouri Plan for Virginia. But Mr. Rubin says we must first amend (definition) the constitution to allow for the public input in judge re-selection (re-appointment) via retention elections.
...
The Question
I ask for your support in getting on the 2009 November ballot the following question:
“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to change the method of re-appointing state judges from confirmation by the legislature to retention election by the voters?
_ YES
_ NO”
Please show your support, or even lack thereof, by sending your comment, your vote, to:
YES.Judge.Retention.Election@gmail.com,
Or,
NO.Judge.Retention.Election@gmail.com.
And please share your viewpoint with your legislators (senator and delegate) when you share it with me. Why not also forward a copy to Counselor and Senior Advisor to the Governor Mark E. Rubin? Information on Mr. Rubin can be found below in my recent email message for him and his answer for me (which also prefaces this post).
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Mommy Go Bye Bye | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/mommy-go-bye-bye#ixzz1OgSGS2Rk
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Kimberly Baucom: CPS's Guard DOG Fairfax County's Chief White Collar Child Abuser
Kimberly Baucom: CPS's Guard DOG Fairfax County's Chief White Collar Child Abuser
Kimberley Baucomb - Fairfax County CPS's White Collar Child Abuser.
Address:
12000 Government Center Pkwy. Suite 549
Fairfax, VA 22035-0064
4-2421 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
kimberly.baucom@fairfaxcounty.gov
This Woman needs to be removed from the Assistant Attorney Position. She is one sick perverted woman who falsifies documents, falsifies in court, aids and abets crooked social workers in stealing children from poor and minority mothers and fathers. She should not be in a government position that is paid for by tax payer's money. Please complain to get her booted out.
Please contact Fairfax County Supervisors and have this woman removed... She should be put on the National Child Abuser List and should be prevented from coming in contact with any Child in the U.S.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/contact/mailform.aspx?ref=1015 - Here is the link to send an email complaining about Fairfax County CPS's abusive practices and about removing Kimberly Baucom.
MASS CPS CORRUPTION
MASS CPS CORRUPTION CONT
GREGORY HESSON ON CPS CORRUPTION
GREGORY HESSON CPS CORRUPTION CONTINUED
CHILDREN KILLED BY CPS
FAMILY COURTS WANT YOUR CHILDREN
ORGANIZED CHILD ABUSE
PARENTS ABUSED BY CPS
CPS IS A FRAUD
CPS ABUSE EXPOSED INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR
Posted by Bernice Wilson at 8:27 AM 2 comments:
Bernice Wilson said...
Kimberley Baucomb changed her name from Kimberly King.. She used to work for the prosecutor's office. Now she has moved to the Fairfax Child Protective Services. This woman is as crooked as the agency she works for. Fairfax County Child Protective Services - or should I say Fairfax County Child Abusing Services.
May 17, 2009 8:31 AM
Nitheesh said...
Hey, nice site you have here! Keep up the excellent work!
Child Care Services
March 25, 2011 12:19 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch - Ghost written by Robert Machen (supposedly)
Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch -- supposedly ghost written and distributed by Robert Machen
Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch -- supposedly ghost written and distributed by Robert Machen
Pursuant to Virginia Code of Professional Responsibilities, and as a lawyer with a private practice in Fairfax County, Virginia, it becomes incumbent upon me to bring to the tribunal various misconducts of Judge Gaylord Finch Jr of Fairfax circuit court.
I am sure you understand why it has also becomes necessary to protect my identity against any retaliatory actions by Judges and fellow lawyers of the Bar.
By this letter, the members of the undersigned organizations are interested in the administration of Justice and the outcome of this issue.
The focus of this letter is to call your attention in particular to the Jagannathan case (Case Nos: JJ352762-01-01; JJ352771-01-01 on appeal from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Chancery Nos: 182927; 182928. in Fairfax Circuit Court.)
Judge Gaylord Finch of Circuit Court Fairfax has clearly abdicated his judicial responsibilities in direct violations of the canons of judicial conduct and has indulged in a two-year judicial activism, extortion, racketeering and judicial bullying under color of law with attorney Robert Machen.
The intent also appears to cover up serious fraud by Robert Machen under the banner of litigation.
Judge Gaylord Finch has been fully aware that The Virginia State Bar had previously disciplined attorney Mr. Robert Machen, reprimanding him twice and suspending his license for falsifying documents. He has had district committee sanctions against him.
Three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Honorable Judge Thomas D. Thorne, Judge Dickson L. Foster, Judge Robert K. Woltz had found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Machen engaged in conduct for personal advantage, involving deceit that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law and found him guilty under DR1-102(A)(4) of code of professional responsibility.
The Organization – Citizen for Legal Reform had reported Mr. Machen has engaged in conduct which tends to undermine the administration of justice and to bring legal businesses into disrepute;
Judge Finch’s actions have set a stage for a possible Department of Justice investigation. It is my understanding that U.S Senator John Warner had written to the DOJ at the request of his constituent.
I hereby request that the County also initiate an independent investigation into the actions of Judge Gaylord Finch.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in the commonwealth of Virginia. Judges should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.
It is not, however, my job to police Virginia’s jaundiced family court judiciary, but, incredibly, it seems that not a soul, not since Landmark v. Virginia in 1978, NOT ONE SOUL, in our Common-wealth is willing to assume that duty and responsibility for the Common-good of our children to reel in Judge Gaylord Finch. I know some who are nicknaming Virginia’s judicial oversight (or is it “overlook”?) board by referring to it as the Judiciary Integral to Racketeering and Corruption, JIRC for short. I know of at least one article that recently appeared titled “Virginia Gangsters in Judicial Robes” I know many who are seeing the chronic shortsightedness in the handling by our Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission in Richmond of citizen complaints against judges and substitute judges as just more shameful justice, or justice that is not reasoned, but knee-jerk, and just is a Sham.
My condemnation of the catastrophic state which the Fairfax county Circuit Court Civil Justice system has reached under Judge Gaylord Finch to permit this kind of harassment of a pro se Litigant by Lawyers racketeering with a Judge is only dwarfed by my condemnation of a significant portion of the Fairfax Judiciary and the legal community looking the other way.
As lawyers, we must be unfailingly ethical and strive to avoid situations that might raise ethical questions as to the administration of Justice. We also have an obligation to report Judicial misconduct to a tribunal.
Chief Judge McWeeny, your judicial and constitutional responsibilities make it your duty to take the appropriate judicial decisions that require the removal of all interference with justice and with the institutions of the State, in such a way as to permit, to all citizens of Virginia, the effective exercise of the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is this condition, which will make possible the true, changes which our people desire; it will be in the true interests of our justice system.
The Family Court system of Virginia has been subject to the implacable tutelage of a class of opportunists and gold diggers who have come to constitute a veritable parallel justice system, one that is located outside all constitutional, legal norms, ethics and statutes that has brought out the National Counsel of Judges and the majority of sensitive positions in other courts. Ignorant of the very notions of impartiality and objectivity, their harmful actions have come to substitute the idea of fairness to families with that of disrespect for the courts and the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Meanwhile, the class of bought divorce attorneys does a brisk trade with its bar allegiances, imposing a sprit of dependence and submission, running against all ideas of change and creative adaptation, and zealously identifying itself with the judiciary currently in power. Their objective is to systematize the conflation of the judiciary and the State, corrupting the institution of family. This behavior, which breeds discord and confrontation, constitutes in reality the true danger of order, security and stability of our families.
The daily practice of our profession has allowed us to appreciate the true reality lived by Judges and this has incited us to forego the duty of silent reserve to which we are held. In a situation where all the possibilities of dialogue, however stormy or unstable, have been shut down, silence can no longer be an option, and the cry of our consciences rings out like a necessity which I can ignore no longer, even if it is our prisons which should paradoxically be the place for us to find dignity, freedom and a clear conscience.
Speaking from experience, Decent hard working fairfax families have been subjected to routine abuse, interference and harassment by our court system, Honest and ethical lawyers in Fairfax, Virginia no longer have any elbow room to perform their duties against judicial activism by Judges like Gaylord Finch. Treated with arrogance and working in a milieu of intimidation and coercion that shackles our will and prevents us from voicing our true convections. Our dignity is insulted daily and our negative image in the hearts of public opinion is mixed with fear, arbitrariness and injustice, to the point that the sole fact of belonging to our profession is degrading in the eyes of the oppressed and people of honor.
It is time you, Judge McWeeny take the appropriate action.
Yours truly,
Chip
A MATTER OF JUSTICE COALITION
JAIL FOR JUDGES ( VIRGINIA JAIL INITIATIVE)
FAMILY RESOLUTION COUNCIL
Center for Judicial Accountability ( CJA)
Committee for Judicial Ethics
Children’s Legal Foundation
Citizens Justice Institute
Constitution Society Citizens for Legal Responsibilility
Americans for Legal Reform
Corruption Crusaders
FATHERS UNITED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND THE WOMEN’S COALITION
Americans for the Enforcement of Judicial Ethics ( AEJE)
American Family Advocacy Center
Children’s Rights Advocacy
Alienated Parents Association
FATHERS FOR VIRGINIAMOTHERS AGAINST UNJUST LAW
Center for Judicial Accountability ( CJA)
Enclosures: CounterIntelligence Division David Szady Letter to Senator Warner / 08-10-05
DOJ letter to Senator Warner / 07-28-05
Senator Warner to RJ /08-16-2005
Assistant Attorney General Michael Favale reply / 03-03-05
Senator Warner to RJ /06-29-2005
Senator Janet Howell to RJ / 03-14-05
DOJ Michael Battle to Senator Warner / 07-28-05
Senator Warner to RJ / 04-15-05
Governor Mark Warner’s letter to RJ /05-09-05
DOJ Priscillia Jones to RJ /03-14-05
Copies to:
Honorable Judge Gayle Carr
Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030
The Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senator
David W. Szady Assistant Director
5309 Commonwealth Centre Pkwy.Suite 401, Midlothian, VA 23112
Counterintelligence DivisionU.S Department of Justice
Michael A. Battle
Director
U.S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington D.C 20530
The Honorable Judith Jagdmann
Office of Attorney General
900 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219
The Honorable Janet Howell
Senator
P.O Box 2608, Reston, VA 20195-8283
The Honorable Michael Favale
Assistant Attorney General
900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219
Christopher A. Wray
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C 20530
Dan Eggen
National Staff Writer - Justice Department
Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20071
Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch -- supposedly ghost written and distributed by Robert Machen
Pursuant to Virginia Code of Professional Responsibilities, and as a lawyer with a private practice in Fairfax County, Virginia, it becomes incumbent upon me to bring to the tribunal various misconducts of Judge Gaylord Finch Jr of Fairfax circuit court.
I am sure you understand why it has also becomes necessary to protect my identity against any retaliatory actions by Judges and fellow lawyers of the Bar.
By this letter, the members of the undersigned organizations are interested in the administration of Justice and the outcome of this issue.
The focus of this letter is to call your attention in particular to the Jagannathan case (Case Nos: JJ352762-01-01; JJ352771-01-01 on appeal from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Chancery Nos: 182927; 182928. in Fairfax Circuit Court.)
Judge Gaylord Finch of Circuit Court Fairfax has clearly abdicated his judicial responsibilities in direct violations of the canons of judicial conduct and has indulged in a two-year judicial activism, extortion, racketeering and judicial bullying under color of law with attorney Robert Machen.
The intent also appears to cover up serious fraud by Robert Machen under the banner of litigation.
Judge Gaylord Finch has been fully aware that The Virginia State Bar had previously disciplined attorney Mr. Robert Machen, reprimanding him twice and suspending his license for falsifying documents. He has had district committee sanctions against him.
Three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Honorable Judge Thomas D. Thorne, Judge Dickson L. Foster, Judge Robert K. Woltz had found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Machen engaged in conduct for personal advantage, involving deceit that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law and found him guilty under DR1-102(A)(4) of code of professional responsibility.
The Organization – Citizen for Legal Reform had reported Mr. Machen has engaged in conduct which tends to undermine the administration of justice and to bring legal businesses into disrepute;
Judge Finch’s actions have set a stage for a possible Department of Justice investigation. It is my understanding that U.S Senator John Warner had written to the DOJ at the request of his constituent.
I hereby request that the County also initiate an independent investigation into the actions of Judge Gaylord Finch.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in the commonwealth of Virginia. Judges should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.
It is not, however, my job to police Virginia’s jaundiced family court judiciary, but, incredibly, it seems that not a soul, not since Landmark v. Virginia in 1978, NOT ONE SOUL, in our Common-wealth is willing to assume that duty and responsibility for the Common-good of our children to reel in Judge Gaylord Finch. I know some who are nicknaming Virginia’s judicial oversight (or is it “overlook”?) board by referring to it as the Judiciary Integral to Racketeering and Corruption, JIRC for short. I know of at least one article that recently appeared titled “Virginia Gangsters in Judicial Robes” I know many who are seeing the chronic shortsightedness in the handling by our Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission in Richmond of citizen complaints against judges and substitute judges as just more shameful justice, or justice that is not reasoned, but knee-jerk, and just is a Sham.
My condemnation of the catastrophic state which the Fairfax county Circuit Court Civil Justice system has reached under Judge Gaylord Finch to permit this kind of harassment of a pro se Litigant by Lawyers racketeering with a Judge is only dwarfed by my condemnation of a significant portion of the Fairfax Judiciary and the legal community looking the other way.
As lawyers, we must be unfailingly ethical and strive to avoid situations that might raise ethical questions as to the administration of Justice. We also have an obligation to report Judicial misconduct to a tribunal.
Chief Judge McWeeny, your judicial and constitutional responsibilities make it your duty to take the appropriate judicial decisions that require the removal of all interference with justice and with the institutions of the State, in such a way as to permit, to all citizens of Virginia, the effective exercise of the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is this condition, which will make possible the true, changes which our people desire; it will be in the true interests of our justice system.
The Family Court system of Virginia has been subject to the implacable tutelage of a class of opportunists and gold diggers who have come to constitute a veritable parallel justice system, one that is located outside all constitutional, legal norms, ethics and statutes that has brought out the National Counsel of Judges and the majority of sensitive positions in other courts. Ignorant of the very notions of impartiality and objectivity, their harmful actions have come to substitute the idea of fairness to families with that of disrespect for the courts and the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Meanwhile, the class of bought divorce attorneys does a brisk trade with its bar allegiances, imposing a sprit of dependence and submission, running against all ideas of change and creative adaptation, and zealously identifying itself with the judiciary currently in power. Their objective is to systematize the conflation of the judiciary and the State, corrupting the institution of family. This behavior, which breeds discord and confrontation, constitutes in reality the true danger of order, security and stability of our families.
The daily practice of our profession has allowed us to appreciate the true reality lived by Judges and this has incited us to forego the duty of silent reserve to which we are held. In a situation where all the possibilities of dialogue, however stormy or unstable, have been shut down, silence can no longer be an option, and the cry of our consciences rings out like a necessity which I can ignore no longer, even if it is our prisons which should paradoxically be the place for us to find dignity, freedom and a clear conscience.
Speaking from experience, Decent hard working fairfax families have been subjected to routine abuse, interference and harassment by our court system, Honest and ethical lawyers in Fairfax, Virginia no longer have any elbow room to perform their duties against judicial activism by Judges like Gaylord Finch. Treated with arrogance and working in a milieu of intimidation and coercion that shackles our will and prevents us from voicing our true convections. Our dignity is insulted daily and our negative image in the hearts of public opinion is mixed with fear, arbitrariness and injustice, to the point that the sole fact of belonging to our profession is degrading in the eyes of the oppressed and people of honor.
It is time you, Judge McWeeny take the appropriate action.
Yours truly,
Chip
A MATTER OF JUSTICE COALITION
JAIL FOR JUDGES ( VIRGINIA JAIL INITIATIVE)
FAMILY RESOLUTION COUNCIL
Center for Judicial Accountability ( CJA)
Committee for Judicial Ethics
Children’s Legal Foundation
Citizens Justice Institute
Constitution Society Citizens for Legal Responsibilility
Americans for Legal Reform
Corruption Crusaders
FATHERS UNITED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND THE WOMEN’S COALITION
Americans for the Enforcement of Judicial Ethics ( AEJE)
American Family Advocacy Center
Children’s Rights Advocacy
Alienated Parents Association
FATHERS FOR VIRGINIAMOTHERS AGAINST UNJUST LAW
Center for Judicial Accountability ( CJA)
Enclosures: CounterIntelligence Division David Szady Letter to Senator Warner / 08-10-05
DOJ letter to Senator Warner / 07-28-05
Senator Warner to RJ /08-16-2005
Assistant Attorney General Michael Favale reply / 03-03-05
Senator Warner to RJ /06-29-2005
Senator Janet Howell to RJ / 03-14-05
DOJ Michael Battle to Senator Warner / 07-28-05
Senator Warner to RJ / 04-15-05
Governor Mark Warner’s letter to RJ /05-09-05
DOJ Priscillia Jones to RJ /03-14-05
Copies to:
Honorable Judge Gayle Carr
Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030
The Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senator
David W. Szady Assistant Director
5309 Commonwealth Centre Pkwy.Suite 401, Midlothian, VA 23112
Counterintelligence DivisionU.S Department of Justice
Michael A. Battle
Director
U.S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington D.C 20530
The Honorable Judith Jagdmann
Office of Attorney General
900 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219
The Honorable Janet Howell
Senator
P.O Box 2608, Reston, VA 20195-8283
The Honorable Michael Favale
Assistant Attorney General
900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219
Christopher A. Wray
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C 20530
Dan Eggen
National Staff Writer - Justice Department
Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20071
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Persecution and Prosecution of Reverend Moon
The Persecution and Prosecution of Reverend Moon
by Candadai Seshachari
That hope is at the heart of Carlton Sherwood's Inquisition. It is also at the heart of the price that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon has paid.
by Candadai Seshachari
This book review of Inquisition is reprinted, with permission, from Weber Studies: An Interdisciplinary Humanities Journal, Fall 92 (Weber State University, Ogden, Utah). Dr. Seshachari is the Interim Dean, College of Arts and Humanities at Weber State University.
Imagine this scenario: A hard-hitting, highly respected journalist, the only reporter ever to have won both the Pulitzer Prize and the Peabody Award, sees an irresistible opportunity to do a woof-and-warp expose on an alien church. The leader of this church has been tried for federal tax evasion and duly sentenced to 18 months in jail. This church has been publicly ridiculed and openly attacked in the American press. U.S. Senator Robert Dole and Congressman Donald Frazer have vociferously accused the church of brainwashing religious-minded Americans with lies and blasphemies.
The reporter hires himself on the staff of a newspaper that is owned by the much-aligned church to "get an inside track on one of the most controversial religious organizations in the United States." In time, he earns the trust of its leaders, secures access to its inner echelons of power, and gains access to confidential records. The stage is now unabashedly set for an explosive account that could conceivably blow the church off the American soil!
Now the players: the church, the Unification Church; the leader, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon; the newspaper, The Washington Times; the would-be exposer, the redoubtable Carlton Sherwood. Sherwood had hoped to undermine the Unification Church by mining the very stuff of "juicy sex scandals." He thought he would surely confront in Moon "a Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart clone running loose."
Clean slate
Result of investigation? "Zero." And what about all the grizzly stories of kidnapped kids who were forced to disavow their parents and religions? "In a word: bunk," to quote Carlton Sherwood again. What Sherwood found instead was a church that was puritanical to its core, a church that did not suffer even ordinary moral lapses by its members one that was simple, straightforward, and amazingly charitable. He uncovered a horrifying story of government's hate and intolerance toward everyday, ordinary Americans who had chosen to exercise their religious freedom by following the tenets of the Reverend Moon.
Sherwood's investigation showed that the CIA, FBI, INS, SEC, FTC, and a host of other federal agencies including a dozen senate, state, and congressional committees had single-mindedly hounded Moon and his Church. It was tantamount to nothing short of a government-backed inquisition. Sherwood's discovery and abhorrence at what he found are best stated in his own words:
"The Unification Church, its leaders and followers were and continue to be the victims of the worst kind of religious prejudice and racial bigotry this country has witnessed in over a century. Moreover, virtually every institution we as Americans hold sacred the Congress, the courts, law enforcement agencies, the press, even the U.S. Constitution itself was prostituted in a malicious, oftentimes brutal manner, as part of a determined effort to wipe out this small but expanding religious movement."
Inquisition is a thoroughly researched story of the persecution and prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. The charge against Moon was that he had used nearly $8,000 of church money for his everyday use, something that mainstream churches have historically done. Sherwood details how certain members of the jury were "Mooney" haters and how some others were manipulated. He narrates other grueling tales of iniquities and injustices that were heaped on the Reverend Moon in the name of law and justice. But the significance of the book lies elsewhere.
Telling indictment
Inquisition is a telling indictment of the racial intolerance and religious bigotry that, like some bloody scourge, defiles the national American character. Our national history is often told in terms of blood and violence that are directly related to intolerance and bigotry. From Anne Hutchinson to Joseph Smith, Jr., to Sun Myung Moon to the nine Buddhist monks who were recently slaughtered in Arizona, we hear episodes in our history of the persecution of those whose beliefs are different from ours. The Quakers and Shakers and the Hare Krisnas are self-effacing symbols of our national urge to brutalize those who are not part of the mainstream. Of course, all of this began with the early Puritans those who fled persecution in turn became ruthless persecutors themselves. Also, Native Americans have paid a heavy price, to the point of becoming exterminated, for the mere fact that they were and are different. Religiously and racially.
The Reverend Sun Myung Moon paid the price for being different on both scores in spite of all the guarantees enshrined in the First Amendment. Perhaps what makes Inquisition more than worthwhile reading is that it brings to the fore the idea that there is something in our national character that makes us recoil at wanton, arbitrary, and mindless violence and hate. We celebrate the life and achievements of Martin Luther King, Jr., precisely because he exposed our everyday hatreds and pettinesses. We revere Lincoln because he made us confront our racism.
The Los Angeles racial riots are a testimony to our intolerance of color and race as much as their aftermath is a challenge to our ability to live together. In some basic ways, American society is a fragile society where the best is held in tension with the worst, and the sublime is held in check by the profane. And there is always hope witness the unending barrage of laws guaranteeing fairness and equality that roll out of our legislatures the hope that our idealism will be the harbinger of a better America that is racially and religiously more tolerant.
That hope is at the heart of Carlton Sherwood's Inquisition. It is also at the heart of the price that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon has paid.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
STICKS AND BONES - CPS Abuses in Fairfax County revealed.
STICKS AND BONES
Alice and Miguel Velasquez couldn't explain the bump on their daughter's rib cage to themselves or to their doctor. How, then, could they explain it to Alexandria's Child Protective Services?
by
Sarah Godfrey
On Feb. 3, 2000, Alice and Miguel Velasquez took their daughter Liliana for a routine well-baby visit at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. They were concerned about a lump on the left side of their 4-month-old's rib cage.
Alice, 22, an Army medical-lab technician, had discovered a slight protrusion while handling Liliana a few days earlier. The lump was not visible to the eye but could be felt by running a hand across the child's ribs. She thought of calling Liliana's pediatrician, but the child didn't seem to be in pain when the spot was touched.
Alice's husband, Miguel, 30, a flooring contractor from El Salvador, wasn't home at the time, so she called her grandmother in Indiana to ask for advice. "Liliana is just fine," the older woman assured her. When Miguel returned, he also felt the lump. Unconvinced that it was nothing, he told his wife that they should definitely show it to the doctor when Liliana went for her checkup.
When the couple brought the lump to the attention of the intern who examined Liliana, they say, he dismissed their worries at first. "He said it was probably a calcium deposit, and that she appeared happy and healthy," says Alice. Still, she pressed him. With a history of spinal disorders such as scoliosis and spina bifida in her family, Alice wanted to be sure that the bump wasn't an early indicator of one. "I was hoping if an X-ray caught the signs early, that it could be corrected."
When the couple persisted in their concern, the intern brought in staff pediatrician Dr. Paul Reed, who consented to X-rays for Liliana. Radiologist Donald Flemming performed the X-rays and detected five rib fractures in various stages of healing, as well as three additional suspected rib fractures.
The extent of the baby's injuries prompted Reed to immediately contact Capt. Barbara Craig, a doctor and the director of the Armed Forces Center for Child Protection, as well as Child Protective Services (CPS) in Alexandria, Va., where the Velasquezes were living. Social workers immediately came to the hospital to interview Miguel and Alice.
Liliana was transferred from Bethesda and kept overnight at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The next evening, after the social workers obtained a court order, Liliana was taken into city custody and placed in a foster home.
The Velasquezes claim they had no idea what had happened to cause their daughter's injuries, and were adamant that they had done nothing to cause them. They never imagined that for the next year and a half they would be faced with the impossible task of convincing the city that their daughter's injuries were caused by a rare bone disease they had never even heard of.
Nor could the Velasquezes foresee that another family's experience with Alexandria social services would affect their battle to regain custody of their daughter after the disease was identified. Alice and Miguel had no idea that they would be seen as an opportunity for a city agency under scrutiny to redeem itself.
"While we were going through all of this, the Katelyn Frazier case happened," says Alice. "That made everything a lot harder."
Doctors who discover injuries that appear to be nonaccidental in children are required to notify the proper authorities, usually the jurisdiction's child-welfare agency and/or law enforcement officials. Any doctor who fails to make such a report can face steep fines and possibly imprisonment, depending on state statutes.
Once social workers become involved, they, too, must adhere to specific regulations, in their case dictating how they investigate reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. Virginia receives more than 33,000 reports of possible abuse or neglect each year; its city and county social workers are required to investigate each and every one.
The social workers must decide whether long-term intervention is warranted and whether the child should be taken into protective custody. The investigation process includes talking with the parents—and child, if the child is old enough—face to face, making home visits, and checking for past reports of abuse against any adult members of the household. If social workers find that a report of abuse is founded, they devise a long-term foster-care plan with the family and continue to monitor both parents and child. Parents must meet certain conditions before they are able to regain custody. Usually, they are required to take parenting classes and undergo individual therapy. If they are cooperative and complete the requirements, the family can be reunited.
On its Web site, the Virginia Department of Social Services, which oversees local jurisdictions, states its goal as reuniting families: "Even if the child must be temporarily removed for safety, the goal is to return the child to the home as soon as possible."
Miguel and Alice Velasquez agree that in the beginning stages of their involvement with the social safety net, both the military doctors and the Alexandria social workers who placed their daughter in foster care were doing their jobs correctly. "I've worked in a hospital," says Alice. "If I'd found a child with even one rib fracture, I would've acted the same way."
Two high-profile local cases of child abuse, however, have shifted the goals of child-welfare agencies in both Alexandria and the District of Columbia. Area social-service agencies' traditional emphasis on family reunification has come into question following the deaths of two little girls who might still be alive had they not been returned to their birth mothers.
Twenty-three-month-old Brianna Blackmond was killed on Jan. 6, 2000, two weeks after D.C. child-welfare workers restored legal custody to her mother, Charrisise Blackmond. Brianna had been taken away from her mother in June 1998 after a social worker discovered her and seven siblings living in filth and rummaging through trash trying to find food. She was immediately placed in foster care.
The events that led to Brianna's return to her mother were a series of egregious oversights. The social worker handling Brianna's case failed to complete her recommendation that Brianna not be returned in time for a court hearing. While both the social worker and the attorney representing the city were on vacation, a D.C. Superior Court judge approved a motion entered by Charrisise Blackmond's lawyer to return Brianna to her mother—without a hearing. No one made a home visit before the child was returned. Anyone who had would have discovered that Charrisise Blackmond and several of her children were illegal tenants in the public-housing unit inhabited by Angela O'Brien, the woman who would later kill Brianna with a blow to the head.
Three-year-old Katelyn Frazier was fatally injured two days after Christmas 2000 while in the custody of her mother, Pennee Frazier. Their Alexandria apartment was shared with Frazier's boyfriend, Asher Levin, and three siblings. Katelyn had spent the majority of her life in a foster home under the care of Lesley Dodson, who had sought to adopt the child. Dodson's hopes were dashed in September 2000, when a judge decided to return Katelyn to her birth mother. She had been back in her mother's care only three months when she was killed. Levin later confessed to beating the toddler to death.
Unlike the Brianna case, in which a child seemed to fall through the cracks of a beleaguered child welfare system, the Katelyn case received an enormous amount of attention from city social workers—even after the child was reunited with her mother. The Washington Post reported that Katelyn was the subject of more than 15 court hearings to determine her placement, and social workers visited Pennee Frazier's home more than 30 times during the three months she had her daughter back. But somehow they missed what neighbors and friends later reported: Shortly after returning to her mother's apartment, Katelyn began showing bruises and other obvious signs of abuse.
Katelyn's death outraged community members. Residents have demanded that CPS be held accountable for what many believe was a mishandling of the case.
"[Katelyn] was too young to insist that the Alexandria [Department of Human Services] do its job...which was to make sure that whoever was entrusted with the care of this very vulnerable child did the right thing by her," said one angered community resident in an opinion piece published in the Fairfax Journal.
In July 2001, the city announced it would implement changes outlined in a review of Alexandria CPS conducted by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). The report, which criticized the department's handling of the Frazier case, offered recommendations to improve the agency's case monitoring.
The city was effective in its damage control until it was discovered that the CWLA's report had been edited, with portions unflattering to CPS removed, before City Manager Phil Sunderland distributed it to city councilmembers in June.
With its social-service agencies under intensified scrutiny, Alexandria was probably the worst possible jurisdiction for a family lobbying for the return of a child.
Sources who work closely with Alexandria CPS say that although de-emphasizing family reunification is not a formal policy reform, they have anecdotal evidence that it's happening all over the city. One source describes the agency as being in "crackdown" mode and says that employees are overcompensating, keeping families apart, because they are "very scared" of making another mistake.
Because of legal constraints, most of the people involved in the removal of Liliana Velasquez from her parents' care were unable to comment on the case for this story. "We have stringent confidentiality rules that apply to social-services work—we can't even acknowledge that we have any case under our care or anything attendant to that. We can actually be charged with a misdemeanor if we do so," explains Meg O'Reagan, director of Alexandria's Department of Human Services. Her department oversees the city's Family Services Division,which includes CPS.
Attorneys George McAndrews, who represents the city, and Russell Hatchell, who represents Liliana's interests in court proceedings, also declined to comment.
"The Frazier case had caused us more problems than we might have had otherwise," says Dorothy Isaacs, an attorney who agreed to represent Alice and Miguel Velasquez pro bono in February 2001. "[The] Alexandria [Department of Human Services] is sensitive right now, and I can't say I blame them. They really screwed up with [the Katelyn Frazier] case."
During their initial interview at the naval hospital, Alice tried to defend her husband to CPS social workers Jackie Lusk and Johnny Simancas. She explained how Miguel cared for their daughter during the day while she was at work. She told them how he drove from their home to her office at the Pentagon and back again twice each day because she hadn't wanted to stop breast-feeding after she returned to work. "Their response to me was 'Whose side are you on?'" says Alice.
"They asked me how much my husband drank and if he had been drinking that night," says Alice. "I told them that we're Mormons—we don't even drink sodas with caffeine."
The Velasquezes were puzzled by the social workers' immediate fingering of Miguel. "My husband couldn't hurt a flea! If anything, he's the one afraid of me! They just had it in their minds from the very beginning that it was him," says Alice.
"I don't even remember the walk from the hospital to the car—I just remember standing in the street and hearing Liliana crying as the car drove away," recalls Alice, crying. "Even after I couldn't see the car any longer, I could still hear her. I sat down on the curb and threw up."
The couple drove home through a snowstorm to an empty apartment. After hours of crying and worrying, they finally fell asleep. Alice would wake up a few hours later: "I heard her cry, and I got up to feed her. But when I went to the crib she wasn't there. I would turn on the lights and look everywhere for her until I realized. This went on for weeks and weeks."
During the course of the investigation, Miguel and Alice were told that if they could provide a reasonable explanation for their daughter's fractures, she would be returned to them. They immediately came up with a list of things that could have possibly happened to cause Liliana's injuries, some of which later came back to haunt them during court proceedings.
Perhaps one of them had rolled on her as she slept in their bed? Or maybe they had pressed on her belly too hard while trying to ease gas and constipation? Maybe her visiting older half-sister had somehow hurt her while they were playing? Miguel offered: "Maybe I hugged her too tight because I love her so much."
Despite their efforts to explain the origin of their daughter's fractures, Miguel was arrested on Feb. 17, 2000, for criminal child abuse and neglect. He says it was his first arrest and that his experience in jail was "very bad": "They just treat you like you're nothing in that place."
The Velasquezes were now faced with not only civil custody hearings and the CPS foster-care requirements but the possibility of a criminal trial as well.
Miguel remained in jail for only a few hours, but after Alice posted bail and he was released, he received the worst blow: Although CPS had granted both Miguel and Alice visitation time with their daughter, as a standard condition of his bond, Miguel was prohibited from seeing Liliana, meaning he could be jailed again if he came into contact with her.
Liliana stayed in foster care for the entire month of February. Alice regained custody of her daughter in March, but Miguel still wasn't allowed to see her. He moved in with his father temporarily, hoping that his court-appointed criminal attorney, Mary McGuire, would soon be able to successfully petition for an amendment to his bond, allowing him to move back home and see his daughter.
But being away from his family proved too much for Miguel to bear. At the beginning of May, he began visiting Liliana and Alice. However, on May 5, someone anonymously tipped off CPS that Miguel was spending time with his daughter. On May 12, Simancas, along with the Fairfax County police, came to the Velasquez home to take away Liliana and arrest Miguel.
Miguel and Alice both describe the scene as something "out of a movie." The cops came into the house in the middle of the night and found Miguel hiding in a bedroom closet. Alice was again left alone. The next morning, for the second time, Alice bailed her husband out of jail.
"We haven't been perfect in this process—it was a mistake," says Alice. "But I knew that if I was in [Miguel's] position and [Miguel] told me that I couldn't see our daughter, that I would hate him. His only crime was missing and wanting to see his daughter."
On May 1, 2000, Miguel was indicted by a City of Alexandria grand jury on the charge of felony child abuse and neglect. The crime typically carries a penalty of two to 10 years' imprisonment. A trial date was set for June.
One evening in February 2000, a few weeks after Liliana was first taken away, Miguel and Alice decided to watch television as a distraction. After a quiet dinner, they sat on the couch and idly flipped through the channels. There was a commercial for the news program 20/20 that mentioned a segment on a disease with a funny name—osteogenesis imperfecta.
A friend at church had mentioned the disease to them just that Sunday. "Have you heard of this?" the friend had asked, handing them some literature on the disease, which is characterized by bones that break easily. The couple decided to watch the prograó. They tuned in at 10 o'clock and learned about the hallmarks of "OI," as it is called—a bluish tint to the whites of the eyes, excessive perspiration, hyperflexibility, and inexplicable bone fractures—sometimes even before a child is born.
Miguel and Alice sat on the couch in silence throughout the entire program, not speaking even to express relief.
"We couldn't believe it—it all made sense. Liliana always sweated a lot and had a bluish tint to her eyes. When she was a baby, Miguel and I would argue about whether her eyes were brown or blue, because the tint was so strong," says Alice. "Even people at church and other family members noticed it. Then there is my family history of spinal problems and my hyperflexibility," she says, bending her elbow back into an impossible position.
"OI is 'brittle-bones' disease," explains Dr. Jay Shapiro of Baltimore's Kennedy Krieger Institute's Osteogenesis Imperfecta Clinic, which treats OI patients from around the world. "It's a disease where people are born with fragile bones—they can have fractures even while in the womb. Most continue to fracture throughout their lives. Some may have only three or four fractures over their lifetime and look fairly normal. Others, with more severe OI, can have growth problems and may be only 3 to 4 feet tall and have many fractures—20, 30, maybe even more."
There are an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 OI sufferers in the United States alone. In its mildest form, the disease may cause the bluish tint to the eyes, brittle teeth, and a slightly triangular face, but these indicators do not necessarily have to be present in a child with OI. Diagnosis is based on a combination of factors, including evaluation by doctors and geneticists, and, if necessary, lab testing. The disease may go undetected for years—or be misdiagnosed as child abuse.
Like OI, child abuse is often characterized by broken bones. Fractures in multiple stages of healing—especially rib fractures—are often present in both children with OI and children who are being battered. And, because these distinguishing characteristics are the same, children with OI are often suspected to be victims of abuse when they are first seen by doctors.
"You have a parent who walks in and presents exactly like someone who abuses their child," says Heller An Shapiro, director of the Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation. "They bring in a child with injuries—fractures, bruises, etc.—and when asked how the injuries occurred, say, 'I don't know.' Well, that is exactly how someone who is abusing their child would respond, so they fit the profile. I have empathy for social workers in this sort of situation who are trying to piece together what's going on."
And, Heller An Shapiro notes, the disease is unfamiliar to many doctors and social workers. "We've worked hard to educate doctors, emergency-room personnel, and social workers, but it's not something that people see often, and it is highly unlikely that it would be diagnosed in its mildest form. Most doctors can spot the more severe types of OI, where the child might be in a wheelchair or have visible deformities. But for a child who looks normal and happens to have OI, the disease is rarely identified right away."
Because the disease is indeed rare and most people are unaware of its existence, the Velasquezes had a difficult time getting authorities to take their claims seriously. After seeing the 20/20 segment, Alice gathered all of the information she could find about OI and presented it to caseworker Lusk, who she says blew it off. She also approached Capt. Craig, who she says told her, "Don't believe everything you see on the Internet."
The couple say that even their respective court-appointed civil attorneys didn't seem interested in the information. But McGuire, faced with a desperate client looking at a decade behind bars, finally agreed to push for an OI test for Liliana. In May 2000, a judge granted the test, to be paid for by the court.
Later that month, Liliana was examined by two physicians in the genetics department of Children's Hospital. She was given a painful skin biopsy, involving the removal of a plug of skin from her forearm about the size of a pencil eraser. "I had to hold her while they took the skin sample," says Alice. "She was just screaming and looking at me like 'Mommy, why are you letting them do this to me?' It was terrible."
The skin sample was sent to the University of Washington's Department of Pathology for analysis in its Collagen Diagnostic Laboratory. The doctors at Children's Hospital also decided to give Liliana another complete set of X-rays, to confirm the presence of the previously diagnosed fractures. These new X-rays showed only five rib fractures—the additional three suspected fractures were not confirmed.
The results of the skin test came back in September. Although such test results usually come back in three weeks, the lab had also performed other studies, including DNA work, along with the collagen skin test. Genetic counselor Melanie Pepin, who works at the lab, says that such additional tests are often conducted "especially with the question of nonaccidental injury." The results confirmed what her parents had suspected: Liliana had tested positive for OI Type I, a mild form of the disease.
The city's civil prosecutor attempted to discredit the test as experimental and unreliable, and argued that the diagnosis of OI didn't preclude the possibility that Miguel could have still abused his daughter. Capt. Craig became a key witness in both lines of argument.
Craig declined to comment for this article, citing confidentiality regulations affecting active-duty military personnel, but she has made her opinions on the case apparent throughout court proceedings. In a November 2000 e-mail to Alexandria Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Roger Canaff, she wrote, "Do I think these parents cannot be trusted? Yes. Do I think Liliana will be further abused in their care? Yes? Can I prove this in court? No. Does she have OI? Maybe—probably....Will a judge or jury buy any of this? They will probably have sympathy on the poor parents who will cry and lie in telling about their ordeal against the mean doctors in the military. The OI, if present, is an extremely mild case and may not have anything to do with her fractures."
The prosecution also pointed out that Liliana had not experienced any new fractures during her year in foster care. Jay Shapiro says that when a child is removed from a home and does not experience new fractures, it often means that the child does not have OI and was being abused.
"Let's say you have someone who brings a child into the ER [with fractures]," Shapiro says. "The ER calls Social Services and the child is taken away. The child has another fracture while on his or her own. Then you have someone who brings a child into ER with many fractures, the child is put in foster home, and the child doesn't fracture again. Usually you can say with some degree of certainty that the first case is OI and the second is child abuse."
Shapiro adds, however, that there are exceptions to the rule. "That type of evaluation is probably good 96 percent of the time. In a couple of cases it may not be so clear. That is the loophole, where you're not 100 percent sure."
"It is true that even if a child has OI there could be real abuse going on," says Heller An Shapiro. "It makes all of the factors difficult to assess—especially in Virginia, where they are so anxious about making a mistake that they may make accusations even when clearly that isn't the case."
"Having OI doesn't mean a child can't be abused, but there is absolutely nothing in Miguel's history that could lead anyone to think he could possibly abuse his child," says Isaacs.
The prosecution also argued that the test for OI can be unreliable. Although the collagen skin test can yield a false negative result, a positive test is foolproof, says Heller An Shapiro: "They got it wrong when they argued about the OI test, calling it experimental. [Liliana] got a positive test. If an OI test is positive, it's positive. The positive success rate is 100 percent. The negative result is less reliable—an 85 to 90 percent success rate. But if someone tests positive, there is no question."
Pepin agrees the test, which has been in use since the early '80s, does not yield positives: "The issue in terms of the test's sensitivity isn't if a positive test confirms OI—a positive result confirms the presence of OI."
In December 2000, Miguel's felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor in light of the new information pertaining to Liliana's OI. In January 2001, the Alexandria city attorney entered a nolle prosequi in the case—declining to prosecute for lack of evidence—after McGuire was successful in suppressing all of his pre-charge statements. His conversations with Reed, Craig, and even Lusk, prior to his arrest, were thrown out. Miguel says he wasn't read his Miranda rights before talking to doctors and social workers at Bethesda. Even though he wasn't being charged with a crime at the time, Miranda law applies to custodial investigations as well. All criminal charges against him were dismissed.
Miguel and Alice thought their daughter was finally coming home.
But the nolle prosequi in Miguel's criminal case had no bearing on either the civil custody proceedings or CPS's monitoring of the family. Instead of reinstating Liliana, the agency was able to keep her in the foster-care system on a technicality: It sustained an internal administrative finding against the parents—an action that affects civil custody.
McGuire had seen to it that all pertinent OI information went into Miguel's file in the criminal case. The court-appointed civil attorneys representing the couple at the time, however, had not done the same for the civil custody case.
"The administrative finding was sustained because they were supposed to submit the results of the OI test and didn't," says Isaacs. "Alice and Miguel rightfully thought that the OI finding was on record, so they didn't submit the doctors' reports. They said that Johnny Simancas told them that it was in the record. Because the parents were supposed to give additional info and didn't, the [administrative] finding was sustained."
CPS also argued that Miguel and Alice had failed to complete a key requirement of their foster-care plan—admitting their guilt.
"They said that they wanted us to stipulate our roles in her abuse and move beyond a victimization posture. We would have lied and said that we did it in a minute, just to get our child back, but it was a Catch-22," says Alice.
"They wanted us to say we were abusing our baby," says Miguel.
If the Velasquezes had admitted guilt, under the nolle prosequi, the misdemeanor case against Miguel could have been reopened, and the criminal charges could have been reinstated. If new evidence is introduced within one year in a nolle prosequi case, charges can be re-entered.
"In September, when the skin biopsy came back, if they would've apologized, I would've understood," says Alice.
"We want our names cleared," continues Alice. "Even when all of this is over, it will follow us. Whenever Liliana starts a new school, it's something that will be on record, something that everyone will know about. We just want an apology. We want them to admit they were wrong."
The Velasquezes believe that CPS focused on Miguel because of his race. "I think I was targeted because I am a Latino man," he says.
In addition to caring for Liliana, Miguel also has an older daughter, 7-year-old Cassandra, from a previous marriage. While married to his ex-wife, Roxanna Garay, and still living with Cassandra full time, he served as her primary caregiver. Cassandra has congenital heart disease, and Garay has testified that when her daughter's illness was at its most severe and she herself couldn't cope, it was her husband who stepped in and cared for the child.
"Miguel's ex-wife testified that he was a loving father—never abused her or their daughter," says Isaacs. "You know, I handle a lot of divorces, and the glowing testimony of an ex-spouse says a lot."
In a March 2000 hearing, Dr. Reed testified that Miguel had been "very flattened in his affect" and "emotionless" as Reed described Liliana's fractures to him.
"Miguel doesn't know what 'fractures' are," counters Alice. Miguel came to America from El Salvador in 1990, and although he speaks English quite well, she argues, medical terminology isn't something that even most native speakers are very familiar with, let alone someone who is still learning the nuances of the language.
"Miguel has language issues, and Alice isn't a lawyer, so there was some confusion," says Isaacs.
One statement that was brought out repeatedly by prosecutors during hearings was Craig's recollection that Miguel had confessed to lifting Liliana with one hand and "throwing" her to her mother "like a football" during his interview with her the day Liliana was brought to Bethesda.
"It's ridiculous. They don't even have football in Miguel's country—he would've never made that comparison!" says Alice.
Heller An Shapiro says that poor families of color are especially vulnerable to charges of child abuse, because social-service agencies often target such families. "That seems to be the profile that social workers and child-abuse experts have in mind. The other piece to that puzzle is young or inexperienced parents."
"There is no doubt in my mind that it is a class issue, but I wouldn't be surprised by racial motivations, either," says Isaacs. "People who can afford counsel, who are familiar with the legal system, and who know when to keep their mouths closed to avoid incriminating themselves—they're treated differently."
In addition to the agony of being separated from their daughter, Miguel and Alice also faced fears that Liliana was being neglected in her foster home. "[CPS] didn't think we were good parents, but they allowed her to be treated poorly in foster care," says Alice.
According to INOVA Alexandria Hospital records, Liliana was hospitalized seven times while under the care of foster mother Willie Mae Gray. Liliana was seen at INOVA Alexandria on May 26, May 27, July 5, Aug. 3, Nov. 12, Dec. 14, and, finally, on Dec. 19, 2000. Usually, she was brought in for malnutrition and diarrhea. Her parents were not notified by social workers of Liliana's trips to the emergency room.
But Alice had begun to notice worrisome changes in her daughter's demeanor. Whenever Liliana was brought to the CPS offices for visitation, she was always "dirty and exhausted," says her mother. Liliana's long hair was often matted to her head and was falling out in small patches. She usually wasn't dressed properly for the weather, adds Alice.
"She was always dirty. She stunk, had terrible diaper rash to the point of open, bloody lesions. I later found out she had several vaginal infections because she was not being cleaned properly," says Alice.
Alice and Miguel found out that their daughter was a frequent visitor to the emergency room only after she contracted pneumonia in December 2000 and was retained for nine days. A hospital employee told Alice that Liliana was a "frequent" visitor, and urged her to seek out a copy of her daughter's medical file. She was able to obtain the records and was shocked at what she found.
Alice became desperate to transfer her daughter from Gray's care and into another foster home. She frantically tried to contact her court-appointed civil attorney, to no avail: "He wouldn't return my calls."
It was at this point that Alice began contacting the media: "Fox 5, Eyewitness News—everybody but Jerry Springer." She was successful in gaining public attention. Both Channel 9 and the Spanish-language cable channel Univision planned spots profiling the family, which were aired in March 2001. The increase in visibility also brought them to Isaacs, whose firm was recommended to the family by an acquaintance.
"People treated us a lot differently after they found out our story was going to be on TV," says Alice. Liliana was placed in another foster home at the end of February. The family believes that Isaacs' involvement and the media attention they received were instrumental in their daughter's transfer.
Previously, CPS intervened in illnesses and injuries of children in foster care only if a caseworker reported a child as possibly being abused or neglected. But in June 2001, the city announced a "new-eyes approach" that requires investigation into any injuries sustained by a child in foster care. Currently the Velasquezes have physical, but not legal, custody of their daughter. Although she was finally returned to her parents' home in July 2001, the city still effectively has control over all decisions regarding her health, education, and welfare.
The Velasquezes moved to Maryland in late 2001. Alice, who remained on active duty during most of their ordeal, had left the Army that September. Because the couple could no longer pay Alexandria rent without military assistance, the decided to search for an apartment in the more affordable suburbs of Prince George's County. "Of course, that was another whole big issue," says Alice. "They tried to say that we were running away."
Although the Velasquezes moved only 20 minutes from their former home, because they left Virginia, they unknowingly invoked the Interstate Compact to Protect Children (ICPC). This legislation was designed to protect children placed across state lines for foster care and adoption, to ensure that they couldn't slip through the cracks. Under the ICPC, any adopted or foster child remains in the legal custody of the state for six months after any out-of-state move.
After completing all of Alexandria CPS's requirements, Miguel and Alice were devastated to learn that the agency would remain a part of their lives for an additional half-year. The ICPC monitoring period will expire in March, at which time they expect to regain full legal custody of their daughter.
In the meantime, the Velasquezes are attempting to move on with their lives. They are ecstatic to have Liliana back home, and they have a new addition to their family: baby Tahlia, born in October 2001. They are in the process of saving money to have Tahlia tested for OI. Currently, Alice is staying home with both children, and Miguel is supporting the family with contract construction work.
Miguel and Alice must constantly try to protect Liliana from activities that may cause additional fractures, while still trying to ensure that she has as normal a childhood as possible. "We watch her very carefully," says Alice. "We don't let her climb stairs or play on the playground by herself, and we have to watch her when she's around other kids. We also have a list from her doctor of activities she will never be able to do—like horseback riding and gymnastics."
Alice is writing a book about their experiences, not only to help her and her husband process it all, but also so that their daughter will have a record of the ordeal. "I don't want her to hate us. I want her, when she's old enough, to understand exactly what happened—to know how much we love her and that we never gave up on her. We never stopped fighting."
Miguel and Alice communicate with other parents of children with OI who have had similar experiences. At first, they sought out other families and support groups for counsel. Now, they say, they are beginning to give guidance themselves. "It's so incredibly sad. I've done a lot of research on OI, and other families, in almost every single case, have their child taken away, and it is sometimes years before the child is tested," says Alice.
"There was one family where the father served five years in prison before his child tested positive for OI," Alice continues. "After five years in jail, the father is scared to death to touch the kid, the mother is alienated from her husband after spending years wondering if he really did it, and the child doesn't really know his parents. You can't even tell that they're a family anymore. When I think about it, we're one of the lucky ones."
It is easy to see why Alice and Miguel feel lucky, despite their travails, upon seeing Liliana in action. The now-2-year-old girl is beautiful and bright. Although, like many toddlers she is initially reluctant around new people, once she warms up, she is lively. She runs around the house laughing and tries to draw on anything that will stand still. She talks and talks and talks to no one in particular and loves to give demonstrations of her many toys.
While Alice recounts the story of the fight for Liliana, Miguel tries to occupy his daughter in the living room. He plies her with ice cream, Powerpuff Girls cartoons, and games of peek-a-boo. Then he takes her for a quick bath and puts her in pink pajamas. Inevitably, however, the toddler decides she wants to be where the action is.
Liliana comes back into the room, crying with no tears, and climbs into her mother's lap. "Aww, was Daddy trying to make you go to sleep? Oh no, what a mean daddy!" says Alice playfully. Liliana mimics her mother and manages a garbled "mean daddy" of her own. Alice falls over in peals of laughter, stopping only when she notices Miguel grimacing. "Please, Alice," he says. "Don't teach her to say that." CP
Copyright © 2002 Washington Free Weekly Inc.
Alice and Miguel Velasquez couldn't explain the bump on their daughter's rib cage to themselves or to their doctor. How, then, could they explain it to Alexandria's Child Protective Services?
by
Sarah Godfrey
On Feb. 3, 2000, Alice and Miguel Velasquez took their daughter Liliana for a routine well-baby visit at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. They were concerned about a lump on the left side of their 4-month-old's rib cage.
Alice, 22, an Army medical-lab technician, had discovered a slight protrusion while handling Liliana a few days earlier. The lump was not visible to the eye but could be felt by running a hand across the child's ribs. She thought of calling Liliana's pediatrician, but the child didn't seem to be in pain when the spot was touched.
Alice's husband, Miguel, 30, a flooring contractor from El Salvador, wasn't home at the time, so she called her grandmother in Indiana to ask for advice. "Liliana is just fine," the older woman assured her. When Miguel returned, he also felt the lump. Unconvinced that it was nothing, he told his wife that they should definitely show it to the doctor when Liliana went for her checkup.
When the couple brought the lump to the attention of the intern who examined Liliana, they say, he dismissed their worries at first. "He said it was probably a calcium deposit, and that she appeared happy and healthy," says Alice. Still, she pressed him. With a history of spinal disorders such as scoliosis and spina bifida in her family, Alice wanted to be sure that the bump wasn't an early indicator of one. "I was hoping if an X-ray caught the signs early, that it could be corrected."
When the couple persisted in their concern, the intern brought in staff pediatrician Dr. Paul Reed, who consented to X-rays for Liliana. Radiologist Donald Flemming performed the X-rays and detected five rib fractures in various stages of healing, as well as three additional suspected rib fractures.
The extent of the baby's injuries prompted Reed to immediately contact Capt. Barbara Craig, a doctor and the director of the Armed Forces Center for Child Protection, as well as Child Protective Services (CPS) in Alexandria, Va., where the Velasquezes were living. Social workers immediately came to the hospital to interview Miguel and Alice.
Liliana was transferred from Bethesda and kept overnight at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The next evening, after the social workers obtained a court order, Liliana was taken into city custody and placed in a foster home.
The Velasquezes claim they had no idea what had happened to cause their daughter's injuries, and were adamant that they had done nothing to cause them. They never imagined that for the next year and a half they would be faced with the impossible task of convincing the city that their daughter's injuries were caused by a rare bone disease they had never even heard of.
Nor could the Velasquezes foresee that another family's experience with Alexandria social services would affect their battle to regain custody of their daughter after the disease was identified. Alice and Miguel had no idea that they would be seen as an opportunity for a city agency under scrutiny to redeem itself.
"While we were going through all of this, the Katelyn Frazier case happened," says Alice. "That made everything a lot harder."
Doctors who discover injuries that appear to be nonaccidental in children are required to notify the proper authorities, usually the jurisdiction's child-welfare agency and/or law enforcement officials. Any doctor who fails to make such a report can face steep fines and possibly imprisonment, depending on state statutes.
Once social workers become involved, they, too, must adhere to specific regulations, in their case dictating how they investigate reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. Virginia receives more than 33,000 reports of possible abuse or neglect each year; its city and county social workers are required to investigate each and every one.
The social workers must decide whether long-term intervention is warranted and whether the child should be taken into protective custody. The investigation process includes talking with the parents—and child, if the child is old enough—face to face, making home visits, and checking for past reports of abuse against any adult members of the household. If social workers find that a report of abuse is founded, they devise a long-term foster-care plan with the family and continue to monitor both parents and child. Parents must meet certain conditions before they are able to regain custody. Usually, they are required to take parenting classes and undergo individual therapy. If they are cooperative and complete the requirements, the family can be reunited.
On its Web site, the Virginia Department of Social Services, which oversees local jurisdictions, states its goal as reuniting families: "Even if the child must be temporarily removed for safety, the goal is to return the child to the home as soon as possible."
Miguel and Alice Velasquez agree that in the beginning stages of their involvement with the social safety net, both the military doctors and the Alexandria social workers who placed their daughter in foster care were doing their jobs correctly. "I've worked in a hospital," says Alice. "If I'd found a child with even one rib fracture, I would've acted the same way."
Two high-profile local cases of child abuse, however, have shifted the goals of child-welfare agencies in both Alexandria and the District of Columbia. Area social-service agencies' traditional emphasis on family reunification has come into question following the deaths of two little girls who might still be alive had they not been returned to their birth mothers.
Twenty-three-month-old Brianna Blackmond was killed on Jan. 6, 2000, two weeks after D.C. child-welfare workers restored legal custody to her mother, Charrisise Blackmond. Brianna had been taken away from her mother in June 1998 after a social worker discovered her and seven siblings living in filth and rummaging through trash trying to find food. She was immediately placed in foster care.
The events that led to Brianna's return to her mother were a series of egregious oversights. The social worker handling Brianna's case failed to complete her recommendation that Brianna not be returned in time for a court hearing. While both the social worker and the attorney representing the city were on vacation, a D.C. Superior Court judge approved a motion entered by Charrisise Blackmond's lawyer to return Brianna to her mother—without a hearing. No one made a home visit before the child was returned. Anyone who had would have discovered that Charrisise Blackmond and several of her children were illegal tenants in the public-housing unit inhabited by Angela O'Brien, the woman who would later kill Brianna with a blow to the head.
Three-year-old Katelyn Frazier was fatally injured two days after Christmas 2000 while in the custody of her mother, Pennee Frazier. Their Alexandria apartment was shared with Frazier's boyfriend, Asher Levin, and three siblings. Katelyn had spent the majority of her life in a foster home under the care of Lesley Dodson, who had sought to adopt the child. Dodson's hopes were dashed in September 2000, when a judge decided to return Katelyn to her birth mother. She had been back in her mother's care only three months when she was killed. Levin later confessed to beating the toddler to death.
Unlike the Brianna case, in which a child seemed to fall through the cracks of a beleaguered child welfare system, the Katelyn case received an enormous amount of attention from city social workers—even after the child was reunited with her mother. The Washington Post reported that Katelyn was the subject of more than 15 court hearings to determine her placement, and social workers visited Pennee Frazier's home more than 30 times during the three months she had her daughter back. But somehow they missed what neighbors and friends later reported: Shortly after returning to her mother's apartment, Katelyn began showing bruises and other obvious signs of abuse.
Katelyn's death outraged community members. Residents have demanded that CPS be held accountable for what many believe was a mishandling of the case.
"[Katelyn] was too young to insist that the Alexandria [Department of Human Services] do its job...which was to make sure that whoever was entrusted with the care of this very vulnerable child did the right thing by her," said one angered community resident in an opinion piece published in the Fairfax Journal.
In July 2001, the city announced it would implement changes outlined in a review of Alexandria CPS conducted by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). The report, which criticized the department's handling of the Frazier case, offered recommendations to improve the agency's case monitoring.
The city was effective in its damage control until it was discovered that the CWLA's report had been edited, with portions unflattering to CPS removed, before City Manager Phil Sunderland distributed it to city councilmembers in June.
With its social-service agencies under intensified scrutiny, Alexandria was probably the worst possible jurisdiction for a family lobbying for the return of a child.
Sources who work closely with Alexandria CPS say that although de-emphasizing family reunification is not a formal policy reform, they have anecdotal evidence that it's happening all over the city. One source describes the agency as being in "crackdown" mode and says that employees are overcompensating, keeping families apart, because they are "very scared" of making another mistake.
Because of legal constraints, most of the people involved in the removal of Liliana Velasquez from her parents' care were unable to comment on the case for this story. "We have stringent confidentiality rules that apply to social-services work—we can't even acknowledge that we have any case under our care or anything attendant to that. We can actually be charged with a misdemeanor if we do so," explains Meg O'Reagan, director of Alexandria's Department of Human Services. Her department oversees the city's Family Services Division,which includes CPS.
Attorneys George McAndrews, who represents the city, and Russell Hatchell, who represents Liliana's interests in court proceedings, also declined to comment.
"The Frazier case had caused us more problems than we might have had otherwise," says Dorothy Isaacs, an attorney who agreed to represent Alice and Miguel Velasquez pro bono in February 2001. "[The] Alexandria [Department of Human Services] is sensitive right now, and I can't say I blame them. They really screwed up with [the Katelyn Frazier] case."
During their initial interview at the naval hospital, Alice tried to defend her husband to CPS social workers Jackie Lusk and Johnny Simancas. She explained how Miguel cared for their daughter during the day while she was at work. She told them how he drove from their home to her office at the Pentagon and back again twice each day because she hadn't wanted to stop breast-feeding after she returned to work. "Their response to me was 'Whose side are you on?'" says Alice.
"They asked me how much my husband drank and if he had been drinking that night," says Alice. "I told them that we're Mormons—we don't even drink sodas with caffeine."
The Velasquezes were puzzled by the social workers' immediate fingering of Miguel. "My husband couldn't hurt a flea! If anything, he's the one afraid of me! They just had it in their minds from the very beginning that it was him," says Alice.
"I don't even remember the walk from the hospital to the car—I just remember standing in the street and hearing Liliana crying as the car drove away," recalls Alice, crying. "Even after I couldn't see the car any longer, I could still hear her. I sat down on the curb and threw up."
The couple drove home through a snowstorm to an empty apartment. After hours of crying and worrying, they finally fell asleep. Alice would wake up a few hours later: "I heard her cry, and I got up to feed her. But when I went to the crib she wasn't there. I would turn on the lights and look everywhere for her until I realized. This went on for weeks and weeks."
During the course of the investigation, Miguel and Alice were told that if they could provide a reasonable explanation for their daughter's fractures, she would be returned to them. They immediately came up with a list of things that could have possibly happened to cause Liliana's injuries, some of which later came back to haunt them during court proceedings.
Perhaps one of them had rolled on her as she slept in their bed? Or maybe they had pressed on her belly too hard while trying to ease gas and constipation? Maybe her visiting older half-sister had somehow hurt her while they were playing? Miguel offered: "Maybe I hugged her too tight because I love her so much."
Despite their efforts to explain the origin of their daughter's fractures, Miguel was arrested on Feb. 17, 2000, for criminal child abuse and neglect. He says it was his first arrest and that his experience in jail was "very bad": "They just treat you like you're nothing in that place."
The Velasquezes were now faced with not only civil custody hearings and the CPS foster-care requirements but the possibility of a criminal trial as well.
Miguel remained in jail for only a few hours, but after Alice posted bail and he was released, he received the worst blow: Although CPS had granted both Miguel and Alice visitation time with their daughter, as a standard condition of his bond, Miguel was prohibited from seeing Liliana, meaning he could be jailed again if he came into contact with her.
Liliana stayed in foster care for the entire month of February. Alice regained custody of her daughter in March, but Miguel still wasn't allowed to see her. He moved in with his father temporarily, hoping that his court-appointed criminal attorney, Mary McGuire, would soon be able to successfully petition for an amendment to his bond, allowing him to move back home and see his daughter.
But being away from his family proved too much for Miguel to bear. At the beginning of May, he began visiting Liliana and Alice. However, on May 5, someone anonymously tipped off CPS that Miguel was spending time with his daughter. On May 12, Simancas, along with the Fairfax County police, came to the Velasquez home to take away Liliana and arrest Miguel.
Miguel and Alice both describe the scene as something "out of a movie." The cops came into the house in the middle of the night and found Miguel hiding in a bedroom closet. Alice was again left alone. The next morning, for the second time, Alice bailed her husband out of jail.
"We haven't been perfect in this process—it was a mistake," says Alice. "But I knew that if I was in [Miguel's] position and [Miguel] told me that I couldn't see our daughter, that I would hate him. His only crime was missing and wanting to see his daughter."
On May 1, 2000, Miguel was indicted by a City of Alexandria grand jury on the charge of felony child abuse and neglect. The crime typically carries a penalty of two to 10 years' imprisonment. A trial date was set for June.
One evening in February 2000, a few weeks after Liliana was first taken away, Miguel and Alice decided to watch television as a distraction. After a quiet dinner, they sat on the couch and idly flipped through the channels. There was a commercial for the news program 20/20 that mentioned a segment on a disease with a funny name—osteogenesis imperfecta.
A friend at church had mentioned the disease to them just that Sunday. "Have you heard of this?" the friend had asked, handing them some literature on the disease, which is characterized by bones that break easily. The couple decided to watch the prograó. They tuned in at 10 o'clock and learned about the hallmarks of "OI," as it is called—a bluish tint to the whites of the eyes, excessive perspiration, hyperflexibility, and inexplicable bone fractures—sometimes even before a child is born.
Miguel and Alice sat on the couch in silence throughout the entire program, not speaking even to express relief.
"We couldn't believe it—it all made sense. Liliana always sweated a lot and had a bluish tint to her eyes. When she was a baby, Miguel and I would argue about whether her eyes were brown or blue, because the tint was so strong," says Alice. "Even people at church and other family members noticed it. Then there is my family history of spinal problems and my hyperflexibility," she says, bending her elbow back into an impossible position.
"OI is 'brittle-bones' disease," explains Dr. Jay Shapiro of Baltimore's Kennedy Krieger Institute's Osteogenesis Imperfecta Clinic, which treats OI patients from around the world. "It's a disease where people are born with fragile bones—they can have fractures even while in the womb. Most continue to fracture throughout their lives. Some may have only three or four fractures over their lifetime and look fairly normal. Others, with more severe OI, can have growth problems and may be only 3 to 4 feet tall and have many fractures—20, 30, maybe even more."
There are an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 OI sufferers in the United States alone. In its mildest form, the disease may cause the bluish tint to the eyes, brittle teeth, and a slightly triangular face, but these indicators do not necessarily have to be present in a child with OI. Diagnosis is based on a combination of factors, including evaluation by doctors and geneticists, and, if necessary, lab testing. The disease may go undetected for years—or be misdiagnosed as child abuse.
Like OI, child abuse is often characterized by broken bones. Fractures in multiple stages of healing—especially rib fractures—are often present in both children with OI and children who are being battered. And, because these distinguishing characteristics are the same, children with OI are often suspected to be victims of abuse when they are first seen by doctors.
"You have a parent who walks in and presents exactly like someone who abuses their child," says Heller An Shapiro, director of the Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation. "They bring in a child with injuries—fractures, bruises, etc.—and when asked how the injuries occurred, say, 'I don't know.' Well, that is exactly how someone who is abusing their child would respond, so they fit the profile. I have empathy for social workers in this sort of situation who are trying to piece together what's going on."
And, Heller An Shapiro notes, the disease is unfamiliar to many doctors and social workers. "We've worked hard to educate doctors, emergency-room personnel, and social workers, but it's not something that people see often, and it is highly unlikely that it would be diagnosed in its mildest form. Most doctors can spot the more severe types of OI, where the child might be in a wheelchair or have visible deformities. But for a child who looks normal and happens to have OI, the disease is rarely identified right away."
Because the disease is indeed rare and most people are unaware of its existence, the Velasquezes had a difficult time getting authorities to take their claims seriously. After seeing the 20/20 segment, Alice gathered all of the information she could find about OI and presented it to caseworker Lusk, who she says blew it off. She also approached Capt. Craig, who she says told her, "Don't believe everything you see on the Internet."
The couple say that even their respective court-appointed civil attorneys didn't seem interested in the information. But McGuire, faced with a desperate client looking at a decade behind bars, finally agreed to push for an OI test for Liliana. In May 2000, a judge granted the test, to be paid for by the court.
Later that month, Liliana was examined by two physicians in the genetics department of Children's Hospital. She was given a painful skin biopsy, involving the removal of a plug of skin from her forearm about the size of a pencil eraser. "I had to hold her while they took the skin sample," says Alice. "She was just screaming and looking at me like 'Mommy, why are you letting them do this to me?' It was terrible."
The skin sample was sent to the University of Washington's Department of Pathology for analysis in its Collagen Diagnostic Laboratory. The doctors at Children's Hospital also decided to give Liliana another complete set of X-rays, to confirm the presence of the previously diagnosed fractures. These new X-rays showed only five rib fractures—the additional three suspected fractures were not confirmed.
The results of the skin test came back in September. Although such test results usually come back in three weeks, the lab had also performed other studies, including DNA work, along with the collagen skin test. Genetic counselor Melanie Pepin, who works at the lab, says that such additional tests are often conducted "especially with the question of nonaccidental injury." The results confirmed what her parents had suspected: Liliana had tested positive for OI Type I, a mild form of the disease.
The city's civil prosecutor attempted to discredit the test as experimental and unreliable, and argued that the diagnosis of OI didn't preclude the possibility that Miguel could have still abused his daughter. Capt. Craig became a key witness in both lines of argument.
Craig declined to comment for this article, citing confidentiality regulations affecting active-duty military personnel, but she has made her opinions on the case apparent throughout court proceedings. In a November 2000 e-mail to Alexandria Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Roger Canaff, she wrote, "Do I think these parents cannot be trusted? Yes. Do I think Liliana will be further abused in their care? Yes? Can I prove this in court? No. Does she have OI? Maybe—probably....Will a judge or jury buy any of this? They will probably have sympathy on the poor parents who will cry and lie in telling about their ordeal against the mean doctors in the military. The OI, if present, is an extremely mild case and may not have anything to do with her fractures."
The prosecution also pointed out that Liliana had not experienced any new fractures during her year in foster care. Jay Shapiro says that when a child is removed from a home and does not experience new fractures, it often means that the child does not have OI and was being abused.
"Let's say you have someone who brings a child into the ER [with fractures]," Shapiro says. "The ER calls Social Services and the child is taken away. The child has another fracture while on his or her own. Then you have someone who brings a child into ER with many fractures, the child is put in foster home, and the child doesn't fracture again. Usually you can say with some degree of certainty that the first case is OI and the second is child abuse."
Shapiro adds, however, that there are exceptions to the rule. "That type of evaluation is probably good 96 percent of the time. In a couple of cases it may not be so clear. That is the loophole, where you're not 100 percent sure."
"It is true that even if a child has OI there could be real abuse going on," says Heller An Shapiro. "It makes all of the factors difficult to assess—especially in Virginia, where they are so anxious about making a mistake that they may make accusations even when clearly that isn't the case."
"Having OI doesn't mean a child can't be abused, but there is absolutely nothing in Miguel's history that could lead anyone to think he could possibly abuse his child," says Isaacs.
The prosecution also argued that the test for OI can be unreliable. Although the collagen skin test can yield a false negative result, a positive test is foolproof, says Heller An Shapiro: "They got it wrong when they argued about the OI test, calling it experimental. [Liliana] got a positive test. If an OI test is positive, it's positive. The positive success rate is 100 percent. The negative result is less reliable—an 85 to 90 percent success rate. But if someone tests positive, there is no question."
Pepin agrees the test, which has been in use since the early '80s, does not yield positives: "The issue in terms of the test's sensitivity isn't if a positive test confirms OI—a positive result confirms the presence of OI."
In December 2000, Miguel's felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor in light of the new information pertaining to Liliana's OI. In January 2001, the Alexandria city attorney entered a nolle prosequi in the case—declining to prosecute for lack of evidence—after McGuire was successful in suppressing all of his pre-charge statements. His conversations with Reed, Craig, and even Lusk, prior to his arrest, were thrown out. Miguel says he wasn't read his Miranda rights before talking to doctors and social workers at Bethesda. Even though he wasn't being charged with a crime at the time, Miranda law applies to custodial investigations as well. All criminal charges against him were dismissed.
Miguel and Alice thought their daughter was finally coming home.
But the nolle prosequi in Miguel's criminal case had no bearing on either the civil custody proceedings or CPS's monitoring of the family. Instead of reinstating Liliana, the agency was able to keep her in the foster-care system on a technicality: It sustained an internal administrative finding against the parents—an action that affects civil custody.
McGuire had seen to it that all pertinent OI information went into Miguel's file in the criminal case. The court-appointed civil attorneys representing the couple at the time, however, had not done the same for the civil custody case.
"The administrative finding was sustained because they were supposed to submit the results of the OI test and didn't," says Isaacs. "Alice and Miguel rightfully thought that the OI finding was on record, so they didn't submit the doctors' reports. They said that Johnny Simancas told them that it was in the record. Because the parents were supposed to give additional info and didn't, the [administrative] finding was sustained."
CPS also argued that Miguel and Alice had failed to complete a key requirement of their foster-care plan—admitting their guilt.
"They said that they wanted us to stipulate our roles in her abuse and move beyond a victimization posture. We would have lied and said that we did it in a minute, just to get our child back, but it was a Catch-22," says Alice.
"They wanted us to say we were abusing our baby," says Miguel.
If the Velasquezes had admitted guilt, under the nolle prosequi, the misdemeanor case against Miguel could have been reopened, and the criminal charges could have been reinstated. If new evidence is introduced within one year in a nolle prosequi case, charges can be re-entered.
"In September, when the skin biopsy came back, if they would've apologized, I would've understood," says Alice.
"We want our names cleared," continues Alice. "Even when all of this is over, it will follow us. Whenever Liliana starts a new school, it's something that will be on record, something that everyone will know about. We just want an apology. We want them to admit they were wrong."
The Velasquezes believe that CPS focused on Miguel because of his race. "I think I was targeted because I am a Latino man," he says.
In addition to caring for Liliana, Miguel also has an older daughter, 7-year-old Cassandra, from a previous marriage. While married to his ex-wife, Roxanna Garay, and still living with Cassandra full time, he served as her primary caregiver. Cassandra has congenital heart disease, and Garay has testified that when her daughter's illness was at its most severe and she herself couldn't cope, it was her husband who stepped in and cared for the child.
"Miguel's ex-wife testified that he was a loving father—never abused her or their daughter," says Isaacs. "You know, I handle a lot of divorces, and the glowing testimony of an ex-spouse says a lot."
In a March 2000 hearing, Dr. Reed testified that Miguel had been "very flattened in his affect" and "emotionless" as Reed described Liliana's fractures to him.
"Miguel doesn't know what 'fractures' are," counters Alice. Miguel came to America from El Salvador in 1990, and although he speaks English quite well, she argues, medical terminology isn't something that even most native speakers are very familiar with, let alone someone who is still learning the nuances of the language.
"Miguel has language issues, and Alice isn't a lawyer, so there was some confusion," says Isaacs.
One statement that was brought out repeatedly by prosecutors during hearings was Craig's recollection that Miguel had confessed to lifting Liliana with one hand and "throwing" her to her mother "like a football" during his interview with her the day Liliana was brought to Bethesda.
"It's ridiculous. They don't even have football in Miguel's country—he would've never made that comparison!" says Alice.
Heller An Shapiro says that poor families of color are especially vulnerable to charges of child abuse, because social-service agencies often target such families. "That seems to be the profile that social workers and child-abuse experts have in mind. The other piece to that puzzle is young or inexperienced parents."
"There is no doubt in my mind that it is a class issue, but I wouldn't be surprised by racial motivations, either," says Isaacs. "People who can afford counsel, who are familiar with the legal system, and who know when to keep their mouths closed to avoid incriminating themselves—they're treated differently."
In addition to the agony of being separated from their daughter, Miguel and Alice also faced fears that Liliana was being neglected in her foster home. "[CPS] didn't think we were good parents, but they allowed her to be treated poorly in foster care," says Alice.
According to INOVA Alexandria Hospital records, Liliana was hospitalized seven times while under the care of foster mother Willie Mae Gray. Liliana was seen at INOVA Alexandria on May 26, May 27, July 5, Aug. 3, Nov. 12, Dec. 14, and, finally, on Dec. 19, 2000. Usually, she was brought in for malnutrition and diarrhea. Her parents were not notified by social workers of Liliana's trips to the emergency room.
But Alice had begun to notice worrisome changes in her daughter's demeanor. Whenever Liliana was brought to the CPS offices for visitation, she was always "dirty and exhausted," says her mother. Liliana's long hair was often matted to her head and was falling out in small patches. She usually wasn't dressed properly for the weather, adds Alice.
"She was always dirty. She stunk, had terrible diaper rash to the point of open, bloody lesions. I later found out she had several vaginal infections because she was not being cleaned properly," says Alice.
Alice and Miguel found out that their daughter was a frequent visitor to the emergency room only after she contracted pneumonia in December 2000 and was retained for nine days. A hospital employee told Alice that Liliana was a "frequent" visitor, and urged her to seek out a copy of her daughter's medical file. She was able to obtain the records and was shocked at what she found.
Alice became desperate to transfer her daughter from Gray's care and into another foster home. She frantically tried to contact her court-appointed civil attorney, to no avail: "He wouldn't return my calls."
It was at this point that Alice began contacting the media: "Fox 5, Eyewitness News—everybody but Jerry Springer." She was successful in gaining public attention. Both Channel 9 and the Spanish-language cable channel Univision planned spots profiling the family, which were aired in March 2001. The increase in visibility also brought them to Isaacs, whose firm was recommended to the family by an acquaintance.
"People treated us a lot differently after they found out our story was going to be on TV," says Alice. Liliana was placed in another foster home at the end of February. The family believes that Isaacs' involvement and the media attention they received were instrumental in their daughter's transfer.
Previously, CPS intervened in illnesses and injuries of children in foster care only if a caseworker reported a child as possibly being abused or neglected. But in June 2001, the city announced a "new-eyes approach" that requires investigation into any injuries sustained by a child in foster care. Currently the Velasquezes have physical, but not legal, custody of their daughter. Although she was finally returned to her parents' home in July 2001, the city still effectively has control over all decisions regarding her health, education, and welfare.
The Velasquezes moved to Maryland in late 2001. Alice, who remained on active duty during most of their ordeal, had left the Army that September. Because the couple could no longer pay Alexandria rent without military assistance, the decided to search for an apartment in the more affordable suburbs of Prince George's County. "Of course, that was another whole big issue," says Alice. "They tried to say that we were running away."
Although the Velasquezes moved only 20 minutes from their former home, because they left Virginia, they unknowingly invoked the Interstate Compact to Protect Children (ICPC). This legislation was designed to protect children placed across state lines for foster care and adoption, to ensure that they couldn't slip through the cracks. Under the ICPC, any adopted or foster child remains in the legal custody of the state for six months after any out-of-state move.
After completing all of Alexandria CPS's requirements, Miguel and Alice were devastated to learn that the agency would remain a part of their lives for an additional half-year. The ICPC monitoring period will expire in March, at which time they expect to regain full legal custody of their daughter.
In the meantime, the Velasquezes are attempting to move on with their lives. They are ecstatic to have Liliana back home, and they have a new addition to their family: baby Tahlia, born in October 2001. They are in the process of saving money to have Tahlia tested for OI. Currently, Alice is staying home with both children, and Miguel is supporting the family with contract construction work.
Miguel and Alice must constantly try to protect Liliana from activities that may cause additional fractures, while still trying to ensure that she has as normal a childhood as possible. "We watch her very carefully," says Alice. "We don't let her climb stairs or play on the playground by herself, and we have to watch her when she's around other kids. We also have a list from her doctor of activities she will never be able to do—like horseback riding and gymnastics."
Alice is writing a book about their experiences, not only to help her and her husband process it all, but also so that their daughter will have a record of the ordeal. "I don't want her to hate us. I want her, when she's old enough, to understand exactly what happened—to know how much we love her and that we never gave up on her. We never stopped fighting."
Miguel and Alice communicate with other parents of children with OI who have had similar experiences. At first, they sought out other families and support groups for counsel. Now, they say, they are beginning to give guidance themselves. "It's so incredibly sad. I've done a lot of research on OI, and other families, in almost every single case, have their child taken away, and it is sometimes years before the child is tested," says Alice.
"There was one family where the father served five years in prison before his child tested positive for OI," Alice continues. "After five years in jail, the father is scared to death to touch the kid, the mother is alienated from her husband after spending years wondering if he really did it, and the child doesn't really know his parents. You can't even tell that they're a family anymore. When I think about it, we're one of the lucky ones."
It is easy to see why Alice and Miguel feel lucky, despite their travails, upon seeing Liliana in action. The now-2-year-old girl is beautiful and bright. Although, like many toddlers she is initially reluctant around new people, once she warms up, she is lively. She runs around the house laughing and tries to draw on anything that will stand still. She talks and talks and talks to no one in particular and loves to give demonstrations of her many toys.
While Alice recounts the story of the fight for Liliana, Miguel tries to occupy his daughter in the living room. He plies her with ice cream, Powerpuff Girls cartoons, and games of peek-a-boo. Then he takes her for a quick bath and puts her in pink pajamas. Inevitably, however, the toddler decides she wants to be where the action is.
Liliana comes back into the room, crying with no tears, and climbs into her mother's lap. "Aww, was Daddy trying to make you go to sleep? Oh no, what a mean daddy!" says Alice playfully. Liliana mimics her mother and manages a garbled "mean daddy" of her own. Alice falls over in peals of laughter, stopping only when she notices Miguel grimacing. "Please, Alice," he says. "Don't teach her to say that." CP
Copyright © 2002 Washington Free Weekly Inc.
The 'experts' who made parents into criminals
The 'experts' who made parents into criminals
Allison Pearson, Evening Standard
"The greatest medical scandal of our times," is what Dr James Le Fanu calls it. He is referring to Shaken Baby Syndrome. Thousands of parents have been wrongly accused of abusing their children because the medical profession, in its arrogance, has taken a certain set of symptoms to be evidence of severe battering, rather than accepting an explanation that a child may have simply fallen.
Paul and Joanne, a lovely London couple I know, recently lived through the hell of being accused of harming their baby daughter. Taking the baby to casualty after she rolled off a sofa, they found themselves in a Kafkaesque nightmare, with every protestation of innocence treated as further proof of guilt.
"Denial is highly indicative of abuse," says one smug paediatrician cited by Dr Le Fanu. In other words, unless parents confess, they must have done it.
For years, doctors have insisted that severe injuries, such as haemorrhages in the eye, could not be caused by the trivial accidents parents claimed had taken place. The drawback to this position was obvious: no one had ever pushed an infant off the sitting-room sofa in an experiment to see what damage would result.
Instead of proceeding with caution, however, "experts" gave damning evidence of Shaken Baby Syndrome to the Family Court, while bewildered parents, numb with shock and grief, saw their children removed to foster homes. Some of the accused were jailed.
Paul and Joanne were not trusted to take their daughter home. Only the promise that they would never be alone with her - that there would always be a third person present - saved their ninemonthold from being taken to the fearful place we call "care". Any protest was impossible because, if the family went public, the court would seize the child.
In a bitter irony, this family was going through hell in one part of our city at the same time that medical and social services were failing to notice that Victoria Climbie was being tortured in another.
How much easier and more satisfying to torment an innocent middle-class family, who had taken their child to hospital in good faith, than to confront some evil brutes who went to every length to keep the little girl in their charge from proper treatment and diagnosis.
Well, now it has become clear that there is no such thing as Shaken Baby Syndrome. A pathologist has proved that in 18 independently witnessed accidents, trivial falls produced exactly those injuries which were meant to be consistent with violent abuse. And what do we hear from the experts? A thunderous silence. And from the secretive and draconian Family Court? An apologetic cough.
The Shaken Baby Scandal could be the source of some of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice this country has seen. There is an urgent need for a public inquiry. Each case will need to be re-examined. The jailed must be freed.
Then decent, loving people like Paul and Joanne, who live in fear of their toddler falling off her tricycle lest the cuts and bruises be deemed to have a sinister origin, can be taken off the legal blacklist.
At long last, the cries of shaken parents can be heard.
Allison Pearson, Evening Standard
"The greatest medical scandal of our times," is what Dr James Le Fanu calls it. He is referring to Shaken Baby Syndrome. Thousands of parents have been wrongly accused of abusing their children because the medical profession, in its arrogance, has taken a certain set of symptoms to be evidence of severe battering, rather than accepting an explanation that a child may have simply fallen.
Paul and Joanne, a lovely London couple I know, recently lived through the hell of being accused of harming their baby daughter. Taking the baby to casualty after she rolled off a sofa, they found themselves in a Kafkaesque nightmare, with every protestation of innocence treated as further proof of guilt.
"Denial is highly indicative of abuse," says one smug paediatrician cited by Dr Le Fanu. In other words, unless parents confess, they must have done it.
For years, doctors have insisted that severe injuries, such as haemorrhages in the eye, could not be caused by the trivial accidents parents claimed had taken place. The drawback to this position was obvious: no one had ever pushed an infant off the sitting-room sofa in an experiment to see what damage would result.
Instead of proceeding with caution, however, "experts" gave damning evidence of Shaken Baby Syndrome to the Family Court, while bewildered parents, numb with shock and grief, saw their children removed to foster homes. Some of the accused were jailed.
Paul and Joanne were not trusted to take their daughter home. Only the promise that they would never be alone with her - that there would always be a third person present - saved their ninemonthold from being taken to the fearful place we call "care". Any protest was impossible because, if the family went public, the court would seize the child.
In a bitter irony, this family was going through hell in one part of our city at the same time that medical and social services were failing to notice that Victoria Climbie was being tortured in another.
How much easier and more satisfying to torment an innocent middle-class family, who had taken their child to hospital in good faith, than to confront some evil brutes who went to every length to keep the little girl in their charge from proper treatment and diagnosis.
Well, now it has become clear that there is no such thing as Shaken Baby Syndrome. A pathologist has proved that in 18 independently witnessed accidents, trivial falls produced exactly those injuries which were meant to be consistent with violent abuse. And what do we hear from the experts? A thunderous silence. And from the secretive and draconian Family Court? An apologetic cough.
The Shaken Baby Scandal could be the source of some of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice this country has seen. There is an urgent need for a public inquiry. Each case will need to be re-examined. The jailed must be freed.
Then decent, loving people like Paul and Joanne, who live in fear of their toddler falling off her tricycle lest the cuts and bruises be deemed to have a sinister origin, can be taken off the legal blacklist.
At long last, the cries of shaken parents can be heard.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
HOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKS
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
"Most of the time, I was taking their kids away for no good reason" --A New York City CPS worker.[1]
All it takes to begin the potential destruction of a family is a call to one of the child protective "hotlines" in every state. The call can be made anonymously, making the hotlines potent tools for harassment. More often, however, false allegations are well-meaning mistakes made by people who have taken the advice of the child savers.
Though state laws generally encourage -- or require -- reports if you have "reasonable cause to suspect" maltreatment, child savers urge us to call in our slightest suspicions about almost any parental behavior. (And that sort of advice is not limited to adults. One group has published a comic book effectively telling children to turn in their parents to "other grown-up friends" if they get a spanking).[2] The hotlines then forward the calls to Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies who send workers to investigate. These workers can go to a child's school or day care center and interrogate them without warning. Such an interrogation can undercut the bonds of trust essential for healthy parent-child relationships and traumatize children for whom the only harm is the harm of the investigation itself.
Workers can search homes and strip-search children without a warrant. Child savers insist such searches are rare. But in the course of defending against a lawsuit, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services acknowledged how common they really are. In its legal papers, the department said that any effort to restrict strip-searching "would immediately bring the child abuse hotline investigations to a halt."[3] Such a statement can be true only if strip-searching is routine.
Then it is up to the worker to decide if the case will be "substantiated" and the accused will be listed in a state "central register" of suspected child abusers. Workers make these decisions on their own. There is no hearing beforehand, no way for the accused to defend themselves. (In some states, they can try and fight their way out of the register after the fact).
No proof is required to "substantiate" a case. In most states, "substantiated" means only that there is "some credible evidence" of maltreatment, even if there is more evidence of innocence.
And what if parents object to all this? What if they want to defend their children against a strip-search, for example? Technically, in some circumstances, they can say no to a CPS worker (though the worker doesn't have to tell them this -- there is no equivalent of a "Miranda warning"). But if they do say no, the worker can wield the most feared power of all -- the power to remove a child from the home on the spot.
Workers have that power in 29 of America's 55 states and territories. In all but four of the rest, they need merely call the police to do it for them.[4] Parents then must go to court to try and get their children back. In most states, there is supposed to be a hearing in a matter of days, but often it takes far longer before that child's parents get their day in court.[5]
And it is a very short day. Such hearings tend to be five-minute assembly line procedures with a CPS lawyer who does this for a living on one side, and a bewildered, impoverished parent who just met her lawyer five minutes before -- if she has a lawyer at all -- on the other. Children are almost never returned at these hearings. If the children are lucky, they may get to go home after the next hearing in 30 or 90 days. Or maybe they will never go home at all.
And who are the CPS workers who wield this enormous power? In most states, a bachelor's degree in anything and a quickie training course devoted largely to how to fill out forms are the only requirements for the job. Turnover is enormous and caseloads are crushing. And the worker will find little guidance in the law, which is so broad that almost anything can be deemed abuse or, especially, neglect (See Family Preservation Issue Paper 5, Child Abuse and Poverty). Given all that, it's easy to see why so many children are needlessly removed from their homes.
But that is not the only tragedy. Enormous caseloads dominated by false and trivial cases steal workers' time from children in real danger. That's the real reason children sometimes are left in unsafe homes. See Family Preservation Issue Paper 8 .
There is a CPS worker who allegedly told several parents "I have the power of God." Even more frightening than the thought of a worker saying such a thing is the fact that it's true. CPS workers do have the power of God. And rarely is the power of God accompanied by the wisdom of Solomon.
1. Amy Pagnozzi, "HRA Insider: I Took Kids From Parents For No Good Reason," New York Post, February 4, 1991, p.7 Back to Text.
2. Prevent Child Abuse America / Marvel Comics, The Amazing Spider Man, April, 1990, pp.5,6. Back to Text.
3. Defendants' Post-Hearing Memorandum, E.Z. v. Coler, No. 82 C 3976, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, April 17, 1984, p.23. Back to Text.
4. Lucy Alf Younas, State Child Abuse and Neglect Laws: A Comparative Analysis, 1985 (Washington DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1987) Table 9. Back to Text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
