ABUSE/NEGLECT PETITION CASES
Atty. Michael H. Agranoff

BOB AND KAREN
Bob and Karen are a pleasant young couple with three children, living in a nice suburban environment. Bob has a bit of a temper and got in some difficulty with DCF. DCF investigated, got an order of protective supervision (p.s.), and the couple hired me. All was going well: Bob and Karen cooperated, saw the counselors and therapists assigned, cooperated with DCF and the school, worked well with the children’s lawyer, and there were no further problems.

DCF requested an end to p.s. for the two younger children, and of course we agreed. However, DCF also requested a 6-month extension of p.s. for the older child. At a case status conference, I convinced the Atty. General to convince DCF that this was nonsense. Reluctantly, DCF backed down, and we all agreed on a 3-month extension of p.s. without requiring a contested hearing.

As part of the court order, a hearing was set in two months to review if the 3-month p.s. should end as scheduled, or should be extended even further.

Then the fun began.

A month after the agreement, and a month before the scheduled hearing, I wrote to DCF and asked if it had any adverse information on my clients, and any reason why it would not end p.s. as scheduled. DCF did not answer. I sent three follow-ups, and asked the child’s lawyer to follow up also, but there was no response.

Finally, on the day of the hearing, DCF bagged me with a memorandum saying that it would move for an extension of p.s. It listed several reasons, primarily that the child remained disturbed and maladjusted. It quoted the child’s psychologist, psychiatrist, and teacher.

The only problem is that the memorandum was bogus. I personally contacted the psychologist, psychiatrist, and teacher, and all said that the child was fine, the parents were doing well, and most emphatically, DCF involvement should end. I also contacted a therapist who was omitted from the memorandum, and she said the same. In fact, the teacher “quoted” by DCF told me that DCF had never even spoken to her!

I subpoenaed these witnesses into court, and wrote a blistering memo attacking the good faith of the social worker. The child’s lawyer supported us also. As trial was to start, DCF backed down; but not before attacking me viciously in open court.

All of this would have been avoided, of course, had the worker simply spoken to the experts in question and heard their current opinions.

The parents, of course, were forced to expend thousands of extra dollars on lawyer’s fees and subpoena fees for the witnesses, who still had to cancel other appointments to meet the subpoenas that turned out to be unnecessary.

My belief is that we had a particularly vicious worker in this case, one who actively disliked attorneys, and a management still resenting the fact that it had been talked into lowering the prior p.s. request in the first place. Literally thousands of DCF dollars, which of course is taxpayer money, were wasted on sheer vindictiveness. It is true that many parents and guardians are less than honest; but sometimes it is the other way around.

It is frightening to contemplate what might have happened. DCF might have moved to extend p.s. yet again, and would have driven this couple crazy, to the point where Bob might have lost his temper again. The kids could have been seized, and we would have a real nightmare on our hands. All because of failure to be reasonable.

Postscript:  Fortunately, this situation is unlikely to be repeated.  The vicious social worker in question was apparently spoken to and has not pulled such a stunt since.  Further, nowadays, if I got no responses to my follow-ups, I would go higher in the chain of command, even to the Commissioner if necessary.  Also, I urged Bob and Karen to consider a civil rights action, due to the worker's intentional false statements, but they had been through enough and declined.   Thus, while ancient history in a sense, this case is a perfectly accurate description of how some DCF workers operated when they thought that they were immune from the Constitution.  In theory, it could happen again.
 

JASPER
Jasper is a young man who, like many others in our society, became romantically involved with a young woman too early. They had a child together before either was ready. There was a history of domestic violence, and the mother had serious mental health issues. DCF filed a neglect petition, quite properly. When it appeared that the family was still not cooperating, DCF removed the child under an OTC.

DCF filed a status report on Jasper and his mother, who had sought to get temporary custody, and the report was totally inaccurate. DCF refused to revise the report, and Jasper’s court-appointed lawyer refused to provide any help. Jasper and his mother then hired me.

The matter was investigated thoroughly. Jasper had had trouble getting visitation with his son, and a few faxes changed that situation. Jasper also had trouble getting appointments with service providers, which was corrected. Several errors in the DCF status report were corrected. A physician was contacted to verify that DCF’s assertion that Jasper was an uncaring father was simply untrue. Errors in Jasper’s criminal record were corrected. A statement that Jasper was unemployed, which was untrue, was corrected.

Jasper’s mother was considered by DCF to be a mentally-unstable pariah. We were able to obtain statements from a clinician and a psychiatrist which ended this incorrect notion forever.

All this was a simple matter of legwork: file review, interviews, follow-up. There was no magic.

An agreement was made in February, 2004 that there would be a case status conference in April, and that DCF would have reviewed a psychological evaluation and be prepared to discuss reunification of Jasper with his son.

The April case status conference was a disaster. DCF claimed to be unaware of the psychological evaluation. One of its lawyers had mysteriously “buried” the report, and then tried to say that she had not done so. Coincidentally, the report had noted a strong father/son bond, and had recommended reunification. DCF further had not received the corrections to its prior erroneous status report; again, it was buried by the DCF lawyer.

The matter was soon straightened out. DCF’s embarrassment at this case became obvious. A new and top-flight social worker was assigned, and a different DCF lawyer took the case and proceeded. The bond between Jasper and his son became well-known.

Jasper and his son were reunited in July, 2004; longer than it should have taken, but at least it happened. Today the child is happy and is prospering, by DCF’s very admission.


MARTINA
Martina is a pleasant young woman who is borderline retarded. Her companion is a thoroughly decent young man, hard-working and honest, but uneducated. They had a baby. Martina’s sister, Shirley, had a DCF history. Shirley’s children had been removed a few times (but are now reunified and doing well). This combination was enough for DCF to seize Martina’s baby, and a Judge sustained the removal.

But things looked good. Martina had a good DCF social worker, she went to parenting classes, and she kept her home neat. Her companion was cooperative also. DCF decided to return the child in a month, and all appeared well. A success story in the making.

Then suddenly, the DCF social worker changed. It was a standard office reassignment; common enough in a bureaucracy, and legal, but not thoroughly fair to the client. The new social worker was reasonable, not great, but her supervisor was a coward, afraid to take any chances. And his supervisor, the p.s. (program supervisor) was known as the “TPR Queen” of the office.

The supervisor and p.s. panicked. They decided to reverse the prior decision and not return the child. Further, they decided not to tell me, knowing what would happen. They stonewalled and stonewalled. Finally I filed a motion in court to compel DCF to cooperate.

In court, the social worker actually produced a “letter” that she said she had mailed to me, which “explained” everything. I was dumbfounded. I never got any letter, we are very careful in this office, and the worker never explained why she had failed to respond to numerous follow-ups for information.

The worker had actually lied openly to the Judge. The Judge, by her expression, knew it, as did the Asst. Attorney General. But nothing could be done. I admit that I was unprepared for this contingency; not that it would have mattered.

The worker was so stupid that she actually produced her “copy” as an original on DCF letterhead. She hadn’t even bothered to print the “letter” and then run off a copy to conceal her chicanery. Probably she was in the middle of a coffee break and didn’t have the time. The Judge asked why the original, and not her file copy. She mumbled something about wanting to be authentic; it was sickening, worse than Communist Russia.

Three months later, after constant agitation, the child was returned. The couple took the hint and moved out of state with the child. I know from other sources that they are now doing well.

This perjury has stuck in my craw. I realized that nothing could or would be done about it. I realized that the worker lied because she was ordered to lie. From that moment on, I have looked at bureaucracy in a different light.

Fortunately, for the record, 95% of social workers would not do this. But this woman apparently believes that she did nothing wrong; and if she becomes a manager some day, she will doubtless expect others to cover up for her also.

Anyone who thinks that professionals with suits and ties cannot be crooks had better think again.  I shudder to imagine what would have happened had we not pushed DCF: probably an eventual TPR of the child “in his best interests”.

ABBIE
Abbie illustrates the old bureaucratic dictum that there is nothing so simple that it can’t be made difficult.

Abbie is a kindly and hard-working woman. She had a daughter who, unfortunately, had mental problems. The daughter chose a life of drugs, crime, and abusive men; and DCF quite properly removed her children.

Abbie came forward to raise one child, Melody, five years old. Melody and Abbie were bonded anyway, Abbie had a spotless record, and public policy favors relative placement if possible. All was set, and then one thing happened: a social worker noticed that Abbie had a 10-year-old son who was autistic and was going to special schools. The worker challenged Abbie, saying that she could not ensure Melody’s safety while an autistic child was also in the house.

Abbie exploded. She was a simple and honest person who had always fought for her son every step of the way. Now, she reasoned, instead of being commended for her actions, she was being punished. As usual, her anger at the State worker only made matters worse, and DCF decided that Melody could not be placed with Abbie. If Melody’s termination went through, then she would be adopted by strangers.

Abbie also tried to intervene in the Juvenile Court. The Judge postponed the matter, but Abbie did not understand and asked. The social worker lied and told her that the motion had been denied! Abbie was devastated.

Fortunately, Abbie had a friend who had heard of my work with DCF, and she called me. I discovered that the intervention motion was to be heard in a few weeks. We secured letters from six people, including a former social worker, teachers, and health care professionals, that Abbie and her autistic son were doing fine, and that there was no problem. We also secured letters describing Abbie’s bond with Melody. These letters were presented to the Court, the Attorney General, and Melody’s lawyer. Then three wonderful things happened: Melody’s lawyer supported us on the spot; the Judge granted Abbie’s intervention over DCF’s objections; and DCF suddenly did a complete turnaround and agreed to support Abbie’s adoption of Melody.

On the face of it, this was a no-brainer. Not really any more complicated than a simple refinance transaction with one mortgage to pay off. And yet this child Melody might have been scarred for life because a faceless, cowardly, angry bureaucrat let her prejudices and her pique interfere with her duty.

Side Note: I said that Melody’s lawyer supported us right away. In fact, he did more than that: he told me that he wondered why this was an issue at all, since DCF should have supported Melody’s adoption by Abbie in the first place. I thanked him. And yet, it had not occurred to him to fight for this on his own, because he would have had to challenge DCF (at impossibly low State-paid rates) on behalf of a grandmother who had not then bothered to secure a lawyer.

RICARDO AND EMILY
Ricardo and Emily are successful American professional persons. However, they were born and raised in a different country that has, shall we say, less liberal ideas about how to raise children. When their three children started to rebel, and the parents acted sternly, the children knew from their friends to complain to their teachers, who called DCF.

DCF visited and the parents let them in. They knew nothing of lawyers and rights. They were, however, incredibly indignant that the discipline that they had been taught all their lives was now being questioned by the State. They were hostile and arrogant to the social worker, and an unfortunate tone was set. DCF retaliated by filing a petition and hauling them into Juvenile Court. Then they called me.

There was really very little to the case, but DCF persisted. An assistant attorney general who was particularly hostile to the parents was assigned to the case. She insisted that they have separate lawyers, on the grounds of “domestic violence”, even though the parents themselves viewed events as only a minor spat. The Judge agreed.

Ricardo simply could not conceal his disdain for DCF, despite my admonitions. That only prolonged the case. Finally, we got DCF to agree to drop its plans to have the children committed, and instead to settle for protective supervision.

When the term of protective supervision was up, DCF moved to extend it on a number of trivial grounds. We objected. And two wonderful things happened. First, the children were appointed one of the best lawyers in the system. It was good luck. She studied the case, visited the kids, spoke to the parents, reviewed the records, and made it clear that she thought DCF was now doing more harm than good. Whether their intervention was initially justified or not, it was now time to move on.

Second, the judge normally hearing the case was out that day, and a different judge presided. He had happened to serve in the military, and was stationed in Ricardo and Emily’s country of origin for several years. He knew the culture and respected it. He quickly recognized that this was not a neglect or abuse case; just a matter of American culture shock.

Protective supervision ended, DCF was out of the family’s lives, and the allegedly abused child is now happy and successful in college. The other kids are fine. DCF has a serious and important mission. That mission is compromised by vendettas against persons who are not deferential enough to it. Normal discipline is not child abuse; and yet these kids could have been taken away and permanently scarred over a cultural misunderstanding.

Where, one wonders, is the diversity?

JENNIFER
Jennifer was a former prostitute and drug addict. She had a child removed. When she got pregnant, DCF had its eye on her.

Jennifer used substances (alcohol and cocaine) during her pregnancy. She did go to a methodone clinic, with limited success. The baby was born suffering from the effects of substance abuse withdrawl, and required constant care.

The baby’s father was an illegal immigrant. In addition, there were credible reports of domestic violence, and Jennifer had been involved with abusive men before.

It did not look good. In fact, it could hardly have looked worse. DCF removed the baby under an OTC. However, by one of those unexpected miracles, DCF allowed the baby to remain at the hospital with the mother for a few days, until it got stronger.

Jennifer was certainly on an express train to termination of parental rights (TPR). Her mother looked in the phone book and called me. I went to the hospital on a Saturday morning, and we began to work together. Jennifer’s family pledged financial help, and has been faithful ever since.

It was not easy. Jennifer continued to struggle with substances. She denied involvement with the father, but he kept showing up. However, Jennifer was determined to beat the odds.

With the DCF social worker’s help, we got Jennifer placed in a special program in Eastern Connecticut. She would live in a group home, get treatment, and eventually the baby could be placed with her for reunification efforts. It helped that Jennifer and I went to all administrative conferences at DCF and kept up the pressure. Also, we had an outstanding social worker. Nevertheless, the DCF goal remained: TPR and adoption.

We would not give up. Slowly, Jennifer straightened out her life. Her mother helped her out considerably.

The Eastern Connecticut program was good, but it did not allow Jennifer the opportunity to work. DCF found another program for Jennifer in Hartford which would help her to get work and would complete the transition. She would still get the needed counseling at the Eastern Connecticut program.

However, the Eastern people objected. They stated that they could not counsel Jennifer properly unless she lived there full time. It was both a Catch-22 and a bureaucratic turf war.

I wrote letters to everyone at the Eastern Connecticut facility and to DCF. We would not let up on this nonsense. Finally, DCF arranged to secure the needed counseling for Jennifer in Hartford.

The baby’s lawyer remained uninvolved. He never even saw the baby, let alone observed the mother and child together. He did say that he would file a motion to revoke the commitment, and then simply neglected to do so.

Interestingly, this lawyer once hosted a Conn. Bar Association class telling lawyers how to deal with DCF. Sorry I had to miss it.

Jennifer continued to get counseling and medication management. When she failed one drug test, we were called in to DCF, and the supervisor read her the riot act – quite properly. The problem stopped.

The baby was returned to Jennifer when he was 10 months old. Jennifer lives with her mother, and things are going reasonably well. DCF continued to visit and provide support. The baby is thriving; and the father has not been a problem. Jennifer is working, getting her GED, and has apparently straightened herself out.

I see Jennifer and the baby, and he is obviously happy and healthy. The case is an enormous personal gratification. The family is grateful, and they continue to pay monthly, in a payment plan amount that they can afford.

Jennifer’s shortcomings are obvious, and no one denied them. She needed a chance and got one. It is safe to say that hundreds of people in her shoes got no chance, and had their kids permanently removed, because they tried to fight DCF and other bureaucracies with no help.

Jennifer is the type of case that brings honor to the social work profession also.

RITA
Rita was, by all objective standards, a pitiful case. Her daughter was born when she was still in high school and the father was not involved. The daughter was removed because Rita was living at home and had accused members of her family of sexual abuse. In addition, there were unexplained marks on the daughter.

Rita, in truth, did not help her own cause. She had learning disabilities. She continued to live at home even after being warned by DCF to leave the home. She was even suspended from school for being in the lavatory with a boy.

Rita was on the fast track to TPR. Her court-appointed lawyer was simply not involved.

Rita’s family was devastated. They claimed that there was absolutely no abuse. Later, Rita agreed that she had made up the story; and it is impossible to tell what the truth really was. The family, which loved the granddaughter, was denied visitation; which is positively devastating to grandparents. Rita herself got very little visitation.

The family came to see me. They did not have much money, but we settled on a payment plan; which they have kept for the most part.

DCF had set Rita up with various service providers, including support groups and a therapist. She did not always attend faithfully. We pressured her to go, and she did. We worked with the service providers and passed along their information to DCF. Gradually Rita gained more confidence in herself, got her GED, and was able to hold a job.

Luckily, she had an excellent social worker. We worked well together and continued to encourage Rita. The family was finally granted limited visitation with the granddaughter, after extended efforts, and all went well. Rita’s own visitation went well, and the evidence was clear that her daughter was bonded to her.

Rita took parenting classes and got back into the mainstream.

We attended every case status conference and administrative case review. We made certain that the child’s lawyer was aware of the situation. We simply refused to allow Rita to fall through the cracks.

The threatened TPR was never filed. Rita is due to get her daughter back shortly.

Suppose this hadn’t worked. With any luck, the foster or adoptive family would have permitted Rita to see her daughter, who was clearly bonded to her. But there is no guarantee.

It is absolutely true that TPR is needed in some cases. There are parents who simply cannot be helped. But it is also true that if a parent is given a chance, they will come through in most cases. That chance should include a lawyer who is fighting for their rights.

Postscript:  I wrote a written commendation to the DCF Commissioner on this social worker, as I have done for others.  In Court, I gave her a verbal commendation on the record.  The Judge said that he had heard that several times about this worker; she is the best.  So, luck is involved, as it is in much of life.  What is sad is that DCF can be extremely unforgiving of any mistakes that a person has made; while almost never apologizing for its own mistakes.
 

BARNEY AND PHYLLIS
It has often been said that DCF is a child protection agency, and not a child welfare agency. This case illustrates that fully. It also reveals the shortfalls of the State of Connecticut regarding child welfare.

Barney and Phyllis are a very pleasant and normal middle-class couple living in rural Connecticut. They had a son, Aaron. When Aaron was two months old, he was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured femur. The parents were unable to offer any definite explanation. However, they had three theories:

1. It was caused at his day care center.

2. It was caused by a nurse at his pediatrician’s office. They had observed that one particular nurse was a bit rough with children.

3. It was caused by an accident at the hospital itself.

Naturally, the hospital called DCF. Any of the above three theories, plus either or both parents themselves, could have been the cause of the injury.

What would you do, as a concerned citizen, upon reading so far?

DCF’s response was to seize Aaron on an OTC (order of temporary custody), and file neglect petitions against Barney and Phyllis.

There was no evidence that the parents had done anything, intentionally or accidentally. They passed every known test for abusive or unusual behavior. Their personal records were impeccable. They were open, honest, and totally straightforward.

Fortunately, the DCF social worker assigned to the case was excellent, and we since wrote him a commendation letter. He got Aaron placed with the grandmother and secured very liberal visitation rights for the parents. He worked well with us.

When we came to court, the AAG (Assistant Attorney General) representing DCF realized that there was nothing. He offered to revoke the OTC, place Aaron back with his parents, and have the parents plead “Nolo” (not contesting) to the neglect charge. There would then follow 6 months of protective supervision (p.s.)

Most parents would have jumped at the chance. Barney and Phyllis were a lawyer’s dream: they refused to plead to something that they didn’t do, and they were willing to spend the money to prove it.

We wrote a detailed case status memorandum which clearly showed that, at a trial, we would demolish the State’s case. We laid bare our evidence, which included the fact that the hospital reports, upon close examination, turned out to be contradictory. The State had nothing to counter. The AAG backed down, apparently realizing how foolish he would look at trial, and the neglect petition was dismissed. Aaron is happily reunited with his parents today, and DCF is out of the picture.

That did not end our involvement, however. I personally thought it strange that a child suffered a serious injury, which might have been intentional, and no one cared about the cause.

Our office wrote to various agencies. Here are the results:

1. The Department of Public Health (DPH), which licenses and inspects day cares, found no violations at that particular day care. Hence, they closed their case. DPH is not a police force. If it did not see a violation, it could do nothing. It might have acted if 20 kids at that day care had had injuries; but for one injury, with no obvious day care violations, it would do nothing.

2. DPH, which also licenses and inspects medical offices, similarly did not investigate the pediatric center in question. Numerous follow-ups were unanswered.

3. The police were not interested. This is understandable. A police officer needs probable cause to get an arrest warrant; and that was simply not possible here. No one was talking, and there was no hard evidence.

4. Our last resort was the Connecticut State Child Advocate. Sorry, but they replied that they are an oversight agency, and understaffed. Translation: if the kid didn’t get killed, they would do nothing. The Child Advocate, however, helpfully suggested that we contact the police, DPH, or hire a private investigator.

The next time you wonder about how your tax dollars are spent, remember this case.

As a reminder, had the parents pleaded Nolo and taken p.s., there is no reason to believe that the case would have been over when p.s. ended. DCF would know this family’s name. You may be certain that if Aaron ever showed up at school with as much as a scratch, or if the parents had another child, DCF would be all over them.

A happy ending. But not a happy outlook. Child welfare, anyone?
 

HERMAN AND GLENDA

You might think that for DCF to file a neglect petition or OTC regarding a child, it must have at least some evidence that you actually abused or neglected that child. 

You would be mistaken. 

Under the doctrine of “predictive neglect”, a child may be taken solely on the basis of what the parents are alleged to have done previously, even though there has been no harm alleged to the child in question.  Lawyers are referred to In Re Michael D., 752 A. 2d 1135 (2000), which clearly states that DCF need not wait until a child is harmed before the child may be removed.  It is enough to show that there is a “potential for abuse.” 

This is clearly good policy in general.  In the Michael D. case, the mother, who had a minor child, was living with a known child sexual offender.  She was aware of the situation, and did nothing to remedy it.  “Neglect”, as the Court stated, “may be based on a potential risk of harm and not just actual harm.” 

As might be expected, DCF has taken this case to full advantage.  Therefore, even if no one has alleged that you abused or neglected a child, you are never necessarily safe if you have a prior DCF history.  The case of Herman and Glenda is instructive. 

Herman and Glenda had two older children who had been removed by DCF.  They fought the removal, had a four-day trial, and lost.  They were still hoping to get the children back. 

Then Glenda got pregnant.  DCF told the hospital to notify them when the baby was born.  The hospital did that, and DCF promptly seized the baby.  At this point, Herman hired me to help him get the child back.  Glenda had a court-appointed lawyer, and the baby did also. 

The child had been seized on an OTC (order of temporary custody), under the theory of predictive neglect.  Unlike most other OTC’s, there was in this case: 

1.  No allegation of bad prenatal care.  In fact, the care was good. 

2.  No allegation of substance abuse. 

3.  No allegation of domestic violence. 

4.  No allegation that the baby was harmed in any way. 

5.  No allegation that sexual predators were in the wings. 

What there was, however, was the prior removal of the two older children.  The case, then, was nothing about the baby, but was a total rehash of the removal of the older children. 

The evidence was a DCF affidavit, which included the following: 

1.  The parents had been living with the maternal grandmother, who had an open DCF case.   

However, DCF failed to mention that the open case was due to close shortly.  The social worker did admit this on the witness stand. 

2.  The mother had once been living with a registered sex offender, who was currently in prison. 

However, DCF failed to mention that he was no longer a part of the mother’s life in any way.  The social worker admitted on the stand that she had no evidence to the contrary. 

3.  The two older children had been removed earlier, due to domestic violence in the home. 

However, DCF failed to mention that the domestic violence was between the grandmother and an uncle, who was arrested and no longer lives in the home.  The social worker admitted on the stand that she had no evidence to the contrary, and that she had made no attempt to verify that information. 

4.  The two older children had been removed for “failure to thrive.”  The State’s expert witness pediatrician wrote that one child seemed to have failure to thrive, and one had “longstanding failure to thrive.” 

One problem, however, was that there are many causes of “failure to thrive.”  This can easily be found even on the internet.  No expert clearly stated in court that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the parents were the cause of the alleged failure to thrive. 

Another problem is that the records of the children’s regular pediatrician, who had cared for them since birth, contained not one word – not a word – of failure to thrive.  In fact, to the contrary, the pediatrician’s records indicated that the children were doing well.  Office notes of the final visit, before the children were removed, included: “Well appearing, non-toxic, active, alert, no distress, well hydrated, smiling throughout the examination.” 

I wondered how the pediatrician’s records did not count at the removal trial.  Further, I wondered how the State’s expert had found “longstanding” failure to thrive, when the pediatrician had found none at all. 

I was astounded to find out that, at the prior trial, both the State’s expert and the pediatrician had testified.  But the State’s expert’s affidavit was admitted into evidence, while the pediatrician’s records were not.  The mother told me that she had personally gotten the pediatrician’s records and gave them to her court-appointed lawyer, but that lawyer neglected to introduce them into evidence. 

I have since asked that lawyer, three times, why she did not introduce the records.  She has refused to answer.  She has not denied that she got the records.  I suspect that the reason was laziness, compounded by low State payments.  However, I don’t think she has any idea of how she harmed the parents. 

There seemed to be no point in also asking that lawyer why she did not call her own expert witness on the issue of failure to thrive, and the cause thereof. 

At the trial for removal of the baby, I tried to get the pediatrician’s records entered into evidence.  DCF objected, and the Judge sustained the objection.  The reason: the prior trial had “settled” the issue of failure to thrive, and it could not be reopened.  (Lawyers call this “collateral estoppel”).   

I vehemently objected, but to no avail.  I appealed to the court’s sense of justice, as removal of a baby was at issue.  Still unavailing. 

The social worker, on the stand, took no responsibility for failing to mention the pediatrician’s actual records in her affidavit.

 5.  One of the older children had been removed another time, due to injuries intentionally inflicted upon her.  The parents had blamed the babysitter.

 However, DCF failed to mention that the babysitter in fact pled guilty to child abuse, and was sentenced to a year in jail.  The parents were never charged with the injury.  The social worker did admit this on the witness stand.  As to why she failed to mention it in her affidavit, she had no answer. 

On the basis of this affidavit, the Court authorized removal of the baby.   

At trial, the Court sustained the removal.  I have read and re-read the Court’s decision, and still cannot understand it. 

All of the prior “predictive neglect” allegations were bogus.  There was no abuse or neglect of the baby even alleged. 

The worst current allegation was that the parents, in visiting with the older children, had sometimes been uncooperative with the visiting supervisors.  This is unfortunate, but hardly unprecedented; and certainly did not justify the removal of the baby.

Predictive neglect is indeed a powerful tool.   

And, of course, the prior lawyer had never told the parents that if they ever had another baby, it was likely that DCF would act to remove the baby right from the hospital.  Had she done so, we might have been able to utilize preemptive-strike techniques against removal of the baby. We never got that chance. 

This lawyer, needless to say, is still practicing Juvenile Law with a State contract.

 It almost seems silly to mention one other fact.  DCF Policy 46-3-19.1 requires that DCF include exculpatory evidence, and relevant information favorable to the parents, in its affidavits.  That was simply ignored.  DCF Policy 46-3-5 states that supervisors must ensure that social workers follow proper procedures, and submit affidavits to the legal staff for review prior to filing.  That was also ignored.  The Court let DCF get away with this, on the grounds that DCF policies are “internal matters”, not legal statutes.

 We are trying to get this situation changed in the State Legislature.  It will be a long haul.

 Meantime, the baby was removed, although no harm to her had been alleged.

This office supports the theory of predictive neglect.  We should not wait until an innocent baby is injured or killed before taking action.  However, when the removal is based almost entirely upon tainted information, it cannot be fair. 

But it is the law. 

EILEEN

This is yet another case of one woman’s life being turned upside down by a trip to the hospital emergency room. It was all downhill from there. Here kids were removed, and she was dragged into juvenile court. All of this was based on an illegal interview with her children. Fortunately, it ended well, with the case being closed and the juvenile petitions being withdrawn. It may be hard to believe that a trip to the emergency room could cause such hardship for one family; but it did.

Eileen is a hard-working woman, trying to raise two girls on her own. She has the support of her ex-husband, who has good visitation, and who cares for the girls in the afternoon until Eileen gets out of work. Eileen works 6 days a week, from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Before all this, when she got home from work, and after she put the girls to bed, she liked to have a beer or two and relax before going to bed.

One day, Eileen developed severe pains and went to the emergency room. She was taken care of and discharged. Surprisingly, when she returned home, she got a call from DCF. DCF had received a referral from the school based, in part, on one of the children’s statement to her teacher that “Mommy was in the hospital because she drank too much”.

The child, in fact, did not know why her mother went to the hospital. However, a few years earlier, the child was present when her uncle had to be rushed to the hospital for drinking too much. This clearly made a negative impression on the child. Perhaps she should not have known about it; but she did.

We may never know for certain why the child reported this to her teacher, or what else she may have said. We may never know if the DCF social worker accurately reported what the child said. What we do know is that DCF had gone to the school and interviewed Eileen’s children, despite the fact that there were no allegations of abuse; which is a violation of law. Nevertheless, DCF does that all the time. See When DCF Talks to Your Kid Secretly. Based on the interviews with the children, DCF decided that the children were not safe in Eileen’s care.

DCF then met with Eileen, and told her that if she did not agree to a “family arrangement” of allowing the children to reside with their Father during the investigation, the girls would be removed and they would likely be placed in separate foster homes.

The reason for separate homes was that the father was not actually the biological father of one of the girls; but the girl thought he was, and he treated her as his own daughter. Nevertheless, DCF seized on that pretext to frighten Eileen into the idea that her daughters would be separated (and probably frighten them half to death also).

Therefore, Eileen reluctantly agreed to this “family arrangement.” She agreed to comply with the recommended services in order to get the girls returned to her. In retrospect, what choice did she have? What would you have done?

DCF, having already determined that Eileen was negligent, summarily decided upon her course of treatment. Eileen had to go for a substance abuse evaluation, which recommended a partial hospitalization program and diagnosed her (incorrectly) as alcohol dependent. There is little doubt that DCF “suggested” what the substance abuse evaluation should recommend.

Eileen was then recommended for another facility. That facility, fortunately, realized that there was no problem, and refused to accept Eileen for treatment. Needless to say, DCF was not happy. They recommended her for a third substance abuse evaluation at a third facility. This one did not even get to an actual evaluation. During a phone call with the director of the program, Eileen was told that she would not qualify for their services. She was then recommended for treatment at a fourth facility.

The fourth facility finally recommended a relapse prevention program. This again was not what DCF wanted, but by this point DCF had given up searching for facilities to tell it what it wanted to hear. However, in retaliation, DCF would not agree to the girls’ being returned to Eileen’s care until her “treatment” was complete; with the caveat that DCF itself would define what the treatment would be.

After Eileen started the program at the fourth facility, DCF filed Neglect Petitions regarding her two children and dragged her into Juvenile Court. Finally, Eileen herself had had enough, and called our office. After months of Court, and multiple motions and hearings, we were able to convince DCF to withdraw the petitions, which of course should never have been filed in the first place. It was no easy task, but to Eileen, the cost was worth it to have her family back together.

It is reasonably clear that had Eileen called us at the start of this injustice, the net cost to her would have been lower than it actually was. Invariably, when you hear the phrase “DCF”, it pays to call a qualified lawyer right away.