Blogger Note:
Now here is a judge that realizes that there are many people culpable in situations where a child is being abused but those in authroity look the other way. Way to go Judge!
CPS is such a failure as is many of the mandated reporters and it amazes me that the federal government continues to fund CPS.
Now, if we could only find a judge that will put a stop to this money machine that could care a less about children!
---
As the case of a 9-year-old boy with malnutrition continued in juvenile court, the emphasis shifted away from the boy’s parents and toward the actions of others who saw him.
By Carol Marbin Miller
Though Marsee Strong and Edward Bailey remain in Miami-Dade jails on aggravated child abuse charges, an inquiry Wednesday into the welfare of their 9-year-old son focused largely on the role of the doctors, therapists and investigators who were intimately involved with the family — yet failed to notice that the boy was profoundly malnourished and displaying visible signs of abuse.
Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman, who presides over child welfare cases at the county’s Children’s Courthouse in Allapattah, had an unusual hearing in the case Wednesday, requiring administrators with the Department of Children & Families to provide a detailed timeline of the agency’s involvement with the parents, as well as the involvement of other professionals. The 9-year-old, who is one of the family’s six children, was picked up by police last week after he was found wandering his North Miami Beach neighborhood naked, emaciated and sporting an injured eye.
“I still don’t understand how the child could get in this condition, how nothing was done, or inadequate things were being done,” Lederman said during the hearing.
The boy, who was described as having the frame of a 3-year-old, remains in the hospital, where doctors are fighting the effects of malnutrition, said DCF’s attorney, Christine Lopez-Acevedo. “He’s doing better,” Lopez-Acevedo said.
Officially, the children have been under the supervision of DCF since 2002, when a physical abuse report to the state’s abuse and neglect hotline led the agency to take custody of them. They remained in DCF’s care until 2004, when they were returned to Strong and Bailey. DCF retained jurisdiction over the case since then.
DCF’s attorney, Lopez-Acevedo, told Lederman the agency had substantial contact with the family in the ensuing years, though it appears much of the scrutiny concerned one of the 9-year-old’s older sisters, who has had significant involvement with the state’s juvenile justice system, and does not currently live with the family. Though investigators had spoken with the family several times over the past two years, no allegations emerged that Strong or Bailey had mistreated the kids, Lopez-Acevedo said.
Indeed, in June of last year Strong asked DCF for help in raising the children, Lopez-Acevedo said.
Neither the 9-year-old nor his siblings are being named by The Miami Herald to protect their privacy.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Lopez-Acevedo did not accuse the parents of mistreating their children. She said the 9-year-old at the center of the case appears to suffer from poorly understood psychiatric and medical conditions that cause him to eat excessively, and then vomit. Though police described him as horrifically malnourished — he weighed only 35 pounds at age 9, and Lederman said in court last week that he looked like a concentration camp survivor with protruding bones — the boy had been under the regular care of pediatricians and mental health workers, Acevedo said.
“There were a number of eyes on this child, and the [state child-abuse hotline] reports that came in did not include the possibility that he was not being fed in the home,” Acevedo told the judge. “To the naked eye, with his clothes on, you could not necessarily tell this child was suffering from malnutrition.”
Rita Doval, a nurse with the state’s Child Protection Team who interviewed the children, said the kids assured her they were well-fed at home. The 9-year-old said that his parents sometimes withheld food from him, but Doval said the parents contend they were told by other doctors to regulate what the boy ate because he would sometimes eat until he made himself sick. Though the withholding of food may have seemed like a punishment, Doval said, it was intended to protect him.
A court-appointed psychologist, Michael DiTomasso, said neither the 9-year-old nor his siblings suggested they had been abused by Bailey or Strong, though some of the children said they had been allowed to beat each other.
“Three of the children all made clear they had a good mommy and a good daddy,” DiTomasso said. “They were really defensive. They felt really bad, and they saw their parents get arrested. They miss the little one, too. They worry about him in the hospital.”
DiTomasso said he asked the 9-year-old pointedly to explain the marks and bruises police found on his body, but was unable to get an explanation. “My God, you look at the little boy and say, what happened to him? I saw the pictures, and then I saw the child. My first impression was, My God, who did this to him?”
The psychologist said the 9-year-old was in dire need of a comprehensive medical and psychiatric evaluation, and he was surprised that such a battery of tests had not yet been performed. “Something was really wrong physically with this child,” DiTomaso said. “He needs a thorough physical work-up. He’ll get it now, right?”
Source http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/08/2631712/judge-on-emaciated-child-didnt.html
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Barahona judge’s efforts to ferret out leaks detailed
Court records released to The Herald document a judge’s efforts to identify lawyers or child welfare administrators she suspected of leaking secret material to the newspaper.
By Carol Marbin Miller and Diana Moskovitz
“Exceedingly chagrined” that a newspaper had published details about a controversial child custody hearing that she had wanted to keep secret, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia calendared a court hearing for Aug. 26 to ferret out who leaked.
But a day before the scheduled proceeding, an attorney for the Miami-Dade court system told The Miami Herald’s lawyers there would be no hearing. Their presence wasn’t needed.
What court administrators didn’t say: All the courtroom participants under suspicion of talking were going to be in court anyway that morning — at a conference the public was forbidden to attend. And Sampedro-Iglesia had another plan. She was going to require all of them to sign sworn statements that they had not betrayed her trust.
“Where, as here, confidential information is leaked, the Court is vested with the authority to take additional measures to ensure the children are protected and the Court’s orders are followed,” she wrote.
The fight over courtroom access and records concerned the fate of 10-year-old Victor Barahona, who was found Feb. 14 by a road ranger on the side of Interstate 95 in West Palm Beach, convulsing and drenched with chemicals inside his adoptive father Jorge Barahona’s pickup truck.
Jorge Barahona was nearby, on the ground, also ill. The decomposing body of Victor’s twin sister, Nubia, was later found soaked in chemicals and shoved inside a trash bag in the truck..
Police and prosecutors later said the twins had been “tortured” for months inside the Barahonas’ Miami-Dade home.
The case has come to symbolize the longstanding tensions between the rights of abused children to keep private the details of their suffering — versus the public’s desire to hold its government accountable. In the months following Nubia’s death, The Miami Herald went to court four times seeking to compel the release of records or fight efforts to close to the public hearings about the Barahona children. The details surrounding the efforts of Sampedro-Iglesia and State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to identify leakers are contained in court records the newspaper obtained this week after filing suit for their release.
“One of the greatest privileges our Constitution provides is free press afforded by the First Amendment; however, the children in this case deserve their right to privacy, and it is this Court’s responsibility to protect these children,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote in an order.
But Carole Shauffer, executive director of the Youth Law Center, who is helping Florida’s Department of Children & Families improve foster care under a private grant, said privacy concerns often have been used to shield public officials from scrutiny. “Agencies act,” she said, “as if the privacy is there to protect them. It is not. It is supposed to protect the child.”
In the weeks following the twins’ discovery, The Herald published a series of stories documenting critical lapses in the state’s supervision of the former foster children.
The Barahonas had been allowed by the state to adopt the twins in 2009 even though “the red flag of caution and warning was raised many times” by people around the family, including a principal and a volunteer guardian , according to the report done by a panel that investigated how the system failed. Even as Nubia’s body was discovered, two reports to the state’s abuse hotline had gone unheeded.
Amid such controversy, Sampedro-Iglesia closed all future court proceedings regarding the three surviving Barahona children, including Victor, to the public in an order dated July 21.
Under Florida law, hearings in which the state seeks to terminate a parent’s right to his or her children are closed to the public. The Herald’s attorney argued that the custody dispute, and other matters, were not part of such termination efforts, as both Barahona parents, now awaiting trial for murder and aggravated child abuse, had surrendered their rights. The judge disagreed.
A month later, at the request of prosecutors, Sampedro-Iglesia ordered Victor brought back to Miami from the home of his birth uncle in Texas for a hearing to determine who would continue to raise him.
Child welfare administrators wanted Victor to remain in Texas, but prosecutors were seeking his return to foster care in Miami.
On Aug. 19, The Herald reported that Victor had become the subject of a “judicial tug of war,” and that many child welfare experts felt that the hearing never should have been held. Victor himself had testified he wished to remain “with Tio and Tia” in Texas.
The Herald was forced to rely on anonymous sources for the story because its reporters had been kept out of the courtroom.
Insisting that children should never be returned to foster care when a qualified relative wished to adopt them, the head of the University of Miami Law School’s Children & Youth Law Clinic, Bernard Perlmutter, said at the time: “It seems like some kooky things have occurred here.”
The day the story appeared, Sampedro-Iglesia filed an order that Victor be allowed to live with his relatives in Texas.
Six days later, on Aug. 25, Sampedro-Iglesia signed a “gag order” once again forbidding parties to the dispute from discussing it. “Audaciously with the highest degree of impertinence,” she wrote, a courtroom observer even leaked the date of her court hearing to determine the identity of leakers.
“The cumulative effect of the media coverage and statements made by various persons, if allowed to continue, would contravene the basic principles set forth” in state child welfare law, she wrote.
Whoever spoke with the newspaper, she wrote, betrayed “not only the trust of the Court, but, most importantly, the trust of the minor child who is relying upon the good graces of adults to protect him from further sensationalistic intrusion into his private life.”
Sampedro later cancelled the hearing. But, records show, she instructed parties to the Barahona case to go into her chambers following an Aug. 26 status conference, and had her judicial assistant give them all copies of an affidavit stating they had not divulged confidential information.
Of 33 people asked to sign them, only one did not. Former DCF Regional Administrator Jacqui Colyer, who had retired from the agency, was banned by Sampedro-Iglesia from appearing in her court for any other proceedings involving Victor.
“Colyer has apparently decided to refrain from providing the Affidavit and has offered no explanation to the Court regarding such decision,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote in a Sept. 22 order.
Sampedro also wrote two orders limiting the number of people who can attend future Barahona hearings, and, having concluded that she had “appropriately addressed the breach of confidentiality,” denied a request from State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to hold further proceedings to identify the leakers. Fernandez Rundle, she wrote, had authority to investigate the matter herself.
Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, a well-regarded children’s advocate who followed the case closely, said it was the state that failed the boy and his sister.
“Government,” Gelles said, “ought to be held as accountable as they hold parents when involved in a maltreatment proceeding. What this judge is saying is, no, she is beyond accountability. That is contrary to law and common sense.”
“Every judge who has had a hand in this case, every agent of state government, has to be accountable. They are part of the legal parentage of this boy.”
Source http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/30/2567341/barahona-judges-efforts-to-ferret.html
By Carol Marbin Miller and Diana Moskovitz
“Exceedingly chagrined” that a newspaper had published details about a controversial child custody hearing that she had wanted to keep secret, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia calendared a court hearing for Aug. 26 to ferret out who leaked.
But a day before the scheduled proceeding, an attorney for the Miami-Dade court system told The Miami Herald’s lawyers there would be no hearing. Their presence wasn’t needed.
What court administrators didn’t say: All the courtroom participants under suspicion of talking were going to be in court anyway that morning — at a conference the public was forbidden to attend. And Sampedro-Iglesia had another plan. She was going to require all of them to sign sworn statements that they had not betrayed her trust.
“Where, as here, confidential information is leaked, the Court is vested with the authority to take additional measures to ensure the children are protected and the Court’s orders are followed,” she wrote.
The fight over courtroom access and records concerned the fate of 10-year-old Victor Barahona, who was found Feb. 14 by a road ranger on the side of Interstate 95 in West Palm Beach, convulsing and drenched with chemicals inside his adoptive father Jorge Barahona’s pickup truck.
Jorge Barahona was nearby, on the ground, also ill. The decomposing body of Victor’s twin sister, Nubia, was later found soaked in chemicals and shoved inside a trash bag in the truck..
Police and prosecutors later said the twins had been “tortured” for months inside the Barahonas’ Miami-Dade home.
The case has come to symbolize the longstanding tensions between the rights of abused children to keep private the details of their suffering — versus the public’s desire to hold its government accountable. In the months following Nubia’s death, The Miami Herald went to court four times seeking to compel the release of records or fight efforts to close to the public hearings about the Barahona children. The details surrounding the efforts of Sampedro-Iglesia and State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to identify leakers are contained in court records the newspaper obtained this week after filing suit for their release.
“One of the greatest privileges our Constitution provides is free press afforded by the First Amendment; however, the children in this case deserve their right to privacy, and it is this Court’s responsibility to protect these children,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote in an order.
But Carole Shauffer, executive director of the Youth Law Center, who is helping Florida’s Department of Children & Families improve foster care under a private grant, said privacy concerns often have been used to shield public officials from scrutiny. “Agencies act,” she said, “as if the privacy is there to protect them. It is not. It is supposed to protect the child.”
In the weeks following the twins’ discovery, The Herald published a series of stories documenting critical lapses in the state’s supervision of the former foster children.
The Barahonas had been allowed by the state to adopt the twins in 2009 even though “the red flag of caution and warning was raised many times” by people around the family, including a principal and a volunteer guardian , according to the report done by a panel that investigated how the system failed. Even as Nubia’s body was discovered, two reports to the state’s abuse hotline had gone unheeded.
Amid such controversy, Sampedro-Iglesia closed all future court proceedings regarding the three surviving Barahona children, including Victor, to the public in an order dated July 21.
Under Florida law, hearings in which the state seeks to terminate a parent’s right to his or her children are closed to the public. The Herald’s attorney argued that the custody dispute, and other matters, were not part of such termination efforts, as both Barahona parents, now awaiting trial for murder and aggravated child abuse, had surrendered their rights. The judge disagreed.
A month later, at the request of prosecutors, Sampedro-Iglesia ordered Victor brought back to Miami from the home of his birth uncle in Texas for a hearing to determine who would continue to raise him.
Child welfare administrators wanted Victor to remain in Texas, but prosecutors were seeking his return to foster care in Miami.
On Aug. 19, The Herald reported that Victor had become the subject of a “judicial tug of war,” and that many child welfare experts felt that the hearing never should have been held. Victor himself had testified he wished to remain “with Tio and Tia” in Texas.
The Herald was forced to rely on anonymous sources for the story because its reporters had been kept out of the courtroom.
Insisting that children should never be returned to foster care when a qualified relative wished to adopt them, the head of the University of Miami Law School’s Children & Youth Law Clinic, Bernard Perlmutter, said at the time: “It seems like some kooky things have occurred here.”
The day the story appeared, Sampedro-Iglesia filed an order that Victor be allowed to live with his relatives in Texas.
Six days later, on Aug. 25, Sampedro-Iglesia signed a “gag order” once again forbidding parties to the dispute from discussing it. “Audaciously with the highest degree of impertinence,” she wrote, a courtroom observer even leaked the date of her court hearing to determine the identity of leakers.
“The cumulative effect of the media coverage and statements made by various persons, if allowed to continue, would contravene the basic principles set forth” in state child welfare law, she wrote.
Whoever spoke with the newspaper, she wrote, betrayed “not only the trust of the Court, but, most importantly, the trust of the minor child who is relying upon the good graces of adults to protect him from further sensationalistic intrusion into his private life.”
Sampedro later cancelled the hearing. But, records show, she instructed parties to the Barahona case to go into her chambers following an Aug. 26 status conference, and had her judicial assistant give them all copies of an affidavit stating they had not divulged confidential information.
Of 33 people asked to sign them, only one did not. Former DCF Regional Administrator Jacqui Colyer, who had retired from the agency, was banned by Sampedro-Iglesia from appearing in her court for any other proceedings involving Victor.
“Colyer has apparently decided to refrain from providing the Affidavit and has offered no explanation to the Court regarding such decision,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote in a Sept. 22 order.
Sampedro also wrote two orders limiting the number of people who can attend future Barahona hearings, and, having concluded that she had “appropriately addressed the breach of confidentiality,” denied a request from State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to hold further proceedings to identify the leakers. Fernandez Rundle, she wrote, had authority to investigate the matter herself.
Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, a well-regarded children’s advocate who followed the case closely, said it was the state that failed the boy and his sister.
“Government,” Gelles said, “ought to be held as accountable as they hold parents when involved in a maltreatment proceeding. What this judge is saying is, no, she is beyond accountability. That is contrary to law and common sense.”
“Every judge who has had a hand in this case, every agent of state government, has to be accountable. They are part of the legal parentage of this boy.”
Source http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/30/2567341/barahona-judges-efforts-to-ferret.html
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Poverty is an inadequate reason to take children from families - Michigan
By Vivek Sankaran
Detroit Free Press Guest Writer
A loving father sees a judge place his children in foster care because his Walmart job doesn't pay enough, and he and his child live with his sister.
Another father can't get his two boys out of foster care because he can't afford to buy them separate beds.
And a baby is removed from her parents' custody and placed with strangers simply because the family is homeless -- despite the parents' attempt to place the baby with family friends, instead.
All three Michigan families share a common denominator: poverty.
The foster care system exists to protect children from being abused by their parents. Yet, every day, children are separated from their families and placed in the system for no better reason than their parents' low income.
A short conversation with lawyers, caseworkers and judges bears this truth out. And in a state like Michigan, where the child poverty rate has increased by more than 60% in the last 10 years, recent cuts in public assistance and a staggering economy have only made things worse.
The Legislature, courts and the Department of Human Services must take immediate actions to address this growing problem. Here are steps they should consider taking:
• First, Michigan's Legislature should join other states around the country and revise current laws to clarify that a child cannot be placed in foster care -- nor can a parent's rights be terminated -- solely because of poverty. As noted by the California Court of Appeals, "Indigency, by itself, does not make one an unfit parent."
• Second, courts must enforce federal laws that require the Department of Human Service to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent a child's removal from his or her home. When dealing with poor families, this must include providing services such as emergency cash and housing services, day care or assistance in paying utilities, which may be the only barriers preventing the family from being able to take care of itself. Making these types of efforts is far cheaper than paying for children to live in the homes of licensed foster parents.
• Finally, the DHS must offer comprehensive training and enact policies to help its caseworkers, hundreds of whom are brand new, understand the difference between poverty and neglect. Too many caseworkers seem to be confusing the two and, as a direct result, Michigan children face a risk of being unnecessarily separated from their families.
The unfortunate reality in our state is that some families will continue to struggle for as long as the economy does.
But we need to remember: Society's failure to eradicate the evil of poverty can never justify taking children from their loving parents.
Vivek Sankaran is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the founder of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy.
Source http://www.freep.com/article/20111229/OPINION05/112290395/-Guest-commentary-Poverty-is-an-inadequate-reason-to-take-children-from-families-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7COPINION
Detroit Free Press Guest Writer
A loving father sees a judge place his children in foster care because his Walmart job doesn't pay enough, and he and his child live with his sister.
Another father can't get his two boys out of foster care because he can't afford to buy them separate beds.
And a baby is removed from her parents' custody and placed with strangers simply because the family is homeless -- despite the parents' attempt to place the baby with family friends, instead.
All three Michigan families share a common denominator: poverty.
The foster care system exists to protect children from being abused by their parents. Yet, every day, children are separated from their families and placed in the system for no better reason than their parents' low income.
A short conversation with lawyers, caseworkers and judges bears this truth out. And in a state like Michigan, where the child poverty rate has increased by more than 60% in the last 10 years, recent cuts in public assistance and a staggering economy have only made things worse.
The Legislature, courts and the Department of Human Services must take immediate actions to address this growing problem. Here are steps they should consider taking:
• First, Michigan's Legislature should join other states around the country and revise current laws to clarify that a child cannot be placed in foster care -- nor can a parent's rights be terminated -- solely because of poverty. As noted by the California Court of Appeals, "Indigency, by itself, does not make one an unfit parent."
• Second, courts must enforce federal laws that require the Department of Human Service to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent a child's removal from his or her home. When dealing with poor families, this must include providing services such as emergency cash and housing services, day care or assistance in paying utilities, which may be the only barriers preventing the family from being able to take care of itself. Making these types of efforts is far cheaper than paying for children to live in the homes of licensed foster parents.
• Finally, the DHS must offer comprehensive training and enact policies to help its caseworkers, hundreds of whom are brand new, understand the difference between poverty and neglect. Too many caseworkers seem to be confusing the two and, as a direct result, Michigan children face a risk of being unnecessarily separated from their families.
The unfortunate reality in our state is that some families will continue to struggle for as long as the economy does.
But we need to remember: Society's failure to eradicate the evil of poverty can never justify taking children from their loving parents.
Vivek Sankaran is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the founder of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy.
Source http://www.freep.com/article/20111229/OPINION05/112290395/-Guest-commentary-Poverty-is-an-inadequate-reason-to-take-children-from-families-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7COPINION
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Sunlight May Not Be Enough To Disinfect A Corrupt Missouri Judiciary
Posted by CultureVigilante on December 20, 2011
Better Courts for Missouri released a statement, today, outlining a judge’s dereliction of duty as reported by the St Louis Post Dispatch. In the Post’s investigation, they found that Judge, Barbara T. Peebles took a two-week vacation to China, without reassigning her docket, and left her clerks in charge to make judicial decisions. Apparently, this was not the first time something like this has happened in Judge Peebles’ court, and the St. Louis Public Defender was quoted as saying that it was common knowledge the Peebles’ clerks acted on her behalf in the past. At least 350 cases were handled by court clerks in her most recent two-week absence.
What is even more disturbing is that no one, lawyers, clerks, officers of the court system felt the need to report this behavior to the proper authorities of the Missouri Bar Association. It is obvious there is a brotherhood among the judicial network that covers for its own.
Supreme Court rules state: A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
It looks as if the passing of the buck now begins in the St. Louis Circuit Courts. While its presiding judge blamed Peebles and her lack of management over her own court, what of his own decision to sweep any disciplinary action, in this case, under the rug? While cases such as this should be reported to the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline for investigation, it appears that Ohmer will just reassigned Peebles to another court. Apparently because discipline of this type, not having been administered to another judge in over 30 years, was deemed as too harsh a punishment to do so in this case.
St. Louis Circuit Court Presiding Judge Steven Ohmer called the conduct of both Peebles and her clerks “wrong.” He blamed an “overall lack of management and supervision.” …
… Ohmer said he considered — but decided against — removing Peebles from that division after the full scale of the problem was revealed. It would be the kind of action he said has not happened in 30 years. Next month, she will move to a civil trial division as planned.
Better Courts for Missouri, ”a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected.” as described on their web page, was formed to bring “Openness, Accountability, Independence and Excellence in our Judiciary,” and has worked to inform citizens of the dishonor and corruption in the Missouri Plan, which is the method now used in Missouri to select judges.
At the end of BCfM’s Get Involved page, they state:
The judiciary is too important to leave in the control of unaccountable special interests who stand to gain from picking judges in secret. Please join us as we fight to protect the rule of law.
The work of BCfM has been to promote openness and accountability in the selection process, which is absent from the current plan. However, there seems to be no mention, on their website, of the provision in the Missouri Constitution, that provides the power and authority of the State Legislature to impeach judges who are derelict in their responsibilities. While sunlight would certainly provide the public with ability to identify the corruption that has been allowed to mutate in the judiciary over the decades, there still seems to be no catalyst to provide discipline to those who have abused their power and authority.
Article 7: Section 1. All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.
Article 7: Section 2. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried before the supreme court, except that the governor or a member of the supreme court shall be tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the senate. The supreme court or special commission shall take an oath to try impartially the person impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of five-sevenths of the court or special commission.
It would appear that the brotherhood among the judicial network has extended to the legislature since there has been no judge impeached, in Missouri, since the civil war according to the Missouri Court’s website:
Before the commission was created in 1972, an impeachment trial was the only means by which a judge could be removed from office. Since the Civil War era, however, the House has impeached only two Missouri judges – both St. Louis County circuit judges and both in the 1960s. In both cases, the judges resigned from office before the Supreme Court held their trials. While the impeachment mechanism is still available, the commission serves as a more efficient method of ensuring judges adhere to the code of conduct and remain subject to disciplinary review even for ethical lapses that may not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
Would this be the same commission that is charged with oversight of the St. Louis Circuit Courts? It would also appear that the commission, and any other form of authority, from the circuit court to the legislature, has worked very hard to cover for their own since we all know there is much corruption in the judicial branch of government, and there has been very little, if nothing at all, done to stop its escalation of corruption.
Source http://guardianadlitemreform.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/sunlight-may-not-be-enough-to-disinfect-a-corrupt-missouri-judiciary/
Better Courts for Missouri released a statement, today, outlining a judge’s dereliction of duty as reported by the St Louis Post Dispatch. In the Post’s investigation, they found that Judge, Barbara T. Peebles took a two-week vacation to China, without reassigning her docket, and left her clerks in charge to make judicial decisions. Apparently, this was not the first time something like this has happened in Judge Peebles’ court, and the St. Louis Public Defender was quoted as saying that it was common knowledge the Peebles’ clerks acted on her behalf in the past. At least 350 cases were handled by court clerks in her most recent two-week absence.
What is even more disturbing is that no one, lawyers, clerks, officers of the court system felt the need to report this behavior to the proper authorities of the Missouri Bar Association. It is obvious there is a brotherhood among the judicial network that covers for its own.
Supreme Court rules state: A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
It looks as if the passing of the buck now begins in the St. Louis Circuit Courts. While its presiding judge blamed Peebles and her lack of management over her own court, what of his own decision to sweep any disciplinary action, in this case, under the rug? While cases such as this should be reported to the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline for investigation, it appears that Ohmer will just reassigned Peebles to another court. Apparently because discipline of this type, not having been administered to another judge in over 30 years, was deemed as too harsh a punishment to do so in this case.
St. Louis Circuit Court Presiding Judge Steven Ohmer called the conduct of both Peebles and her clerks “wrong.” He blamed an “overall lack of management and supervision.” …
… Ohmer said he considered — but decided against — removing Peebles from that division after the full scale of the problem was revealed. It would be the kind of action he said has not happened in 30 years. Next month, she will move to a civil trial division as planned.
Better Courts for Missouri, ”a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected.” as described on their web page, was formed to bring “Openness, Accountability, Independence and Excellence in our Judiciary,” and has worked to inform citizens of the dishonor and corruption in the Missouri Plan, which is the method now used in Missouri to select judges.
At the end of BCfM’s Get Involved page, they state:
The judiciary is too important to leave in the control of unaccountable special interests who stand to gain from picking judges in secret. Please join us as we fight to protect the rule of law.
The work of BCfM has been to promote openness and accountability in the selection process, which is absent from the current plan. However, there seems to be no mention, on their website, of the provision in the Missouri Constitution, that provides the power and authority of the State Legislature to impeach judges who are derelict in their responsibilities. While sunlight would certainly provide the public with ability to identify the corruption that has been allowed to mutate in the judiciary over the decades, there still seems to be no catalyst to provide discipline to those who have abused their power and authority.
Article 7: Section 1. All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.
Article 7: Section 2. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried before the supreme court, except that the governor or a member of the supreme court shall be tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the senate. The supreme court or special commission shall take an oath to try impartially the person impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of five-sevenths of the court or special commission.
It would appear that the brotherhood among the judicial network has extended to the legislature since there has been no judge impeached, in Missouri, since the civil war according to the Missouri Court’s website:
Before the commission was created in 1972, an impeachment trial was the only means by which a judge could be removed from office. Since the Civil War era, however, the House has impeached only two Missouri judges – both St. Louis County circuit judges and both in the 1960s. In both cases, the judges resigned from office before the Supreme Court held their trials. While the impeachment mechanism is still available, the commission serves as a more efficient method of ensuring judges adhere to the code of conduct and remain subject to disciplinary review even for ethical lapses that may not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
Would this be the same commission that is charged with oversight of the St. Louis Circuit Courts? It would also appear that the commission, and any other form of authority, from the circuit court to the legislature, has worked very hard to cover for their own since we all know there is much corruption in the judicial branch of government, and there has been very little, if nothing at all, done to stop its escalation of corruption.
Source http://guardianadlitemreform.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/sunlight-may-not-be-enough-to-disinfect-a-corrupt-missouri-judiciary/
Friday, December 16, 2011
Feud puts court cases on hold - Nevada
By Jeff German
Fallout from a budding romantic relationship between a former prosecutor and Family Court Judge Steven Jones is now causing delays in child abuse and neglect cases.
And a longtime child advocate is blaming the judge for the disruptions and calling for his removal from hearing all child welfare cases.
The disruptions are the result of a rift between District Attorney David Roger and Jones over the judge's relationship with Lisa Willardson, who as a prosecutor made regular court appearances before Jones. Roger fired Willardson, a deputy in the district attorney's child welfare unit, on Tuesday. She insisted Thursday that she never made appearances before Jones while in a relationship with him.
Jones, 53, last week issued an order banning from his courtroom the two prosecutors in the unit who exposed his courtship of Willardson, creating confusion within the district attorney's office on how to move forward with abuse and neglect cases.
"He should know better," said Donna Coleman, co-founder and former member of the nonprofit Children's Advocacy Alliance. "There are children in foster care waiting to go home for Christmas, and they have to deal with this nonsense.
"The No. 1 priority should be the children, and I am very disgusted by the posturing and game-playing that is going on down there. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money and, more than anything, they're victimizing children who have already been victimized."
Coleman, who ends a two-year term at the end of the month as a member of the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission, said she will file a complaint against Jones with the panel if he is not removed from all child welfare cases.
Chief District Judge Jennifer Togliatti, who has authority to reassign Jones at Family Court, declined to comment Thursday.
Togliatti is presiding over a hearing Tuesday on a motion by Roger to disqualify Jones from a child welfare case because of his "personal bias" against Roger's two whistle-blowing deputies. The court filing amounts to a test case on whether Jones has compromised his ability to make decisions on child welfare matters involving the district attorney's office.
Jones is preparing his written response. He did not return phone calls Thursday.
Roger filed the motion this week after Jones issued the courtroom ban on the two deputy district attorneys, Michelle Edwards and Janne Hanrahan. In his order, Jones cited the "inappropriate and unprofessional behavior" of the two deputies.
Edwards and Hanrahan had provided supervisors with a clandestine photo taken of Willardson and Jones appearing cozy with each other at a public function.
Concerns were subsequently raised within the district attorney's office that the relationship invited a professional conflict of interest for both Willardson and Jones, and Willardson was removed before her firing from handling child abuse and neglect cases in front of Jones.
Willardson said in an email Thursday that the allegations in Roger's court papers are "factually incorrect" and read like a "story from the Enquirer."
She contends she was removed from the child welfare unit before she struck up a relationship with Jones.
"The district attorney's office simply does not want to address the real issue that two of their deputy district attorneys drank way too much alcohol, took a photograph of a District Court judge's crotch and hand, disseminated it around the courthouse and manufactured a relationship in order to downplay the disgraceful behavior of their deputies," Willardson said.
Jones also said earlier this week that "falsehoods" were being spread about him.
On Thursday, the fallout over the relationship caused delays in 34 child abuse and neglect cases being heard by Brigid Duffy, a Family Court hearing master who works under Jones' supervision.
When Edwards showed up to handle the cases, Duffy said that under Jones' order, Edwards was prohibited from practicing before her. Duffy read a statement in each case explaining the ban.
Roger's office did not send a prosecutor to take Edwards' place, forcing Duffy to continue the cases. Some were delayed a week and others two weeks.
"This is additional evidence that Judge Jones is abusing his power," Roger said after learning of the delays. "Some entity is going to have to step in and rein him in."
Earlier this week, Roger called Jones a "bully" who was trying to ruin the careers of Edwards and Hanrahan. Jones said he was troubled that Roger was "condoning" the "inappropriate and unprofessional" behavior of his deputies.
Source http://www.lvrj.com/news/feud-puts-court-cases-on-hold-135721003.html?ref=003
Fallout from a budding romantic relationship between a former prosecutor and Family Court Judge Steven Jones is now causing delays in child abuse and neglect cases.
And a longtime child advocate is blaming the judge for the disruptions and calling for his removal from hearing all child welfare cases.
The disruptions are the result of a rift between District Attorney David Roger and Jones over the judge's relationship with Lisa Willardson, who as a prosecutor made regular court appearances before Jones. Roger fired Willardson, a deputy in the district attorney's child welfare unit, on Tuesday. She insisted Thursday that she never made appearances before Jones while in a relationship with him.
Jones, 53, last week issued an order banning from his courtroom the two prosecutors in the unit who exposed his courtship of Willardson, creating confusion within the district attorney's office on how to move forward with abuse and neglect cases.
"He should know better," said Donna Coleman, co-founder and former member of the nonprofit Children's Advocacy Alliance. "There are children in foster care waiting to go home for Christmas, and they have to deal with this nonsense.
"The No. 1 priority should be the children, and I am very disgusted by the posturing and game-playing that is going on down there. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money and, more than anything, they're victimizing children who have already been victimized."
Coleman, who ends a two-year term at the end of the month as a member of the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission, said she will file a complaint against Jones with the panel if he is not removed from all child welfare cases.
Chief District Judge Jennifer Togliatti, who has authority to reassign Jones at Family Court, declined to comment Thursday.
Togliatti is presiding over a hearing Tuesday on a motion by Roger to disqualify Jones from a child welfare case because of his "personal bias" against Roger's two whistle-blowing deputies. The court filing amounts to a test case on whether Jones has compromised his ability to make decisions on child welfare matters involving the district attorney's office.
Jones is preparing his written response. He did not return phone calls Thursday.
Roger filed the motion this week after Jones issued the courtroom ban on the two deputy district attorneys, Michelle Edwards and Janne Hanrahan. In his order, Jones cited the "inappropriate and unprofessional behavior" of the two deputies.
Edwards and Hanrahan had provided supervisors with a clandestine photo taken of Willardson and Jones appearing cozy with each other at a public function.
Concerns were subsequently raised within the district attorney's office that the relationship invited a professional conflict of interest for both Willardson and Jones, and Willardson was removed before her firing from handling child abuse and neglect cases in front of Jones.
Willardson said in an email Thursday that the allegations in Roger's court papers are "factually incorrect" and read like a "story from the Enquirer."
She contends she was removed from the child welfare unit before she struck up a relationship with Jones.
"The district attorney's office simply does not want to address the real issue that two of their deputy district attorneys drank way too much alcohol, took a photograph of a District Court judge's crotch and hand, disseminated it around the courthouse and manufactured a relationship in order to downplay the disgraceful behavior of their deputies," Willardson said.
Jones also said earlier this week that "falsehoods" were being spread about him.
On Thursday, the fallout over the relationship caused delays in 34 child abuse and neglect cases being heard by Brigid Duffy, a Family Court hearing master who works under Jones' supervision.
When Edwards showed up to handle the cases, Duffy said that under Jones' order, Edwards was prohibited from practicing before her. Duffy read a statement in each case explaining the ban.
Roger's office did not send a prosecutor to take Edwards' place, forcing Duffy to continue the cases. Some were delayed a week and others two weeks.
"This is additional evidence that Judge Jones is abusing his power," Roger said after learning of the delays. "Some entity is going to have to step in and rein him in."
Earlier this week, Roger called Jones a "bully" who was trying to ruin the careers of Edwards and Hanrahan. Jones said he was troubled that Roger was "condoning" the "inappropriate and unprofessional" behavior of his deputies.
Source http://www.lvrj.com/news/feud-puts-court-cases-on-hold-135721003.html?ref=003
Monday, December 12, 2011
Judge sides with Godboldo, won't reinstate criminal charges
by Doug Guthrie
Detroit— Two judges in different Wayne County courtrooms sided Monday with a mother who resisted police forcing their way into her home last March to take her teenage daughter during a dispute with a Child Protective Services worker over medications.
A Family Court judge Monday afternoon accepted positive medical and education reports, and over the objections of an assistant state attorney general representing the Department of Health and Human Services, dismissed jurisdiction that had for nine months come between now 14-year-old Arianna Godboldo and her family.
Earlier Monday, a Wayne County Circuit judge refused to reinstate criminal charges, dismissed in August by a 36th District Court judge, that alleged the mother, Maryanne Godboldo, illegally resisted and assaulted police by allegedly firing a shot at them.
Family members hugged and issued thanks to the judges in both courtrooms, but authorities aren't done pursuing the Godboldos.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's office issued a statement Monday, vowing to make a third appeal to reinstate criminal charges.
And, Family Court Judge Lynne Pierce told Assistant Attorney General Deborah Carley, who complained it appears the girl has never received anything other than homeschooling her entire life, she is not barred from pursuing criminal truancy charges if she feels the parents are flouting state law that required the education of children.
"There may be some more evaluation to be done, but I don't see any more need of this court's continued involvement," Pierce said.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Gregory Bill ruled in the morning against claims by the prosecutor that 36th District Judge Ronald Giles committed judicial error in August when he threw out the criminal charges. Bill said Giles was correct in concluding there was insufficient evidence to order Godboldo to trial.
"It is clear to me that he (Giles) doesn't think the defendant shot at anybody," Bill said, concluding if a shot was fired inside the house, it was fired at the ceiling and perhaps not by the mother.
"Did the child get a hold of the gun? I don't know," Bill said. "There are so many statements that are conflicting evidence, and Judge Giles went out of his way to allow the prosecutor to clear this up."
Godboldo's lawyers have said all along this was about parental rights to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, and the government abused its authority in obtaining an order to take the child without a court hearing. They also said the improper action created a conflict with police that resulted in criminal charges.
"It is absurd," Godboldo lawyer Byron Pitts said about the possibility of another appeal. "Four different judges have said they believe this family did nothing wrong. This includes another District Court judge, Judge (Paula) Humphries, who ruled earlier on some matters. It has been clear to these judges that this all stems from one overzealous caseworker, and continued appeals now border on persecution."
Acting on a call from Wayne County Child Protective Services worker Mia Wenk — who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect — Detroit police officers on March 24 accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them inside. It took hours to talk Godboldo out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.
Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don't normally enforce civil court orders, but they had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.
Bill said his opinion should not be considered as a criticism of Detroit police, but he raised questions about the behavior of the social worker, whom he described as "young." Bill hinted Wenk was impatient, filled out a legal order that was woefully inadequate, broke with established policy by calling 911 to have Detroit police enforce it rather then confront the woman herself, and then misrepresented the meaning of the order to police.
Pierce had ruled in September against the government's claims the mother had committed medical abuse by withholding a controversial anti-psychotic medication. The girl was being treated for a sudden onset of psychotic behavior the mother believes was caused by a bad reaction to immunizations.
Pierce determined Godboldo was within her rights to terminate the voluntary treatment program. The judge ordered the girl returned to the mother's home Sept. 29. A hearing to finalize the juvenile case also is scheduled for later Monday.
Godboldo said Monday she and her daughter had a difficult Sunday night because of heightened anxiety over the coming hearing. She said she hopes authorities will this time accept a judge's assessment of the situation and not appeal again.
"I hope they understand they are affecting people's lives," she said. "They should know of the damage they have done to my daughter because they broke the law."
Godboldo said her daughter had been doing better, but she was continuing to be home schooled because psychiatric troubles continue that she attributes to "effects from the immunizations." She said the girl, who wears a prosthetic leg, continues to enjoy studying dance and music, and playing her conga drums.
"She is coming along," Godboldo said. "She is doing better because she is at home where she belongs."
Source http://www.detnews.com/article/20111212/METRO01/112120383/1409/metro08
Detroit— Two judges in different Wayne County courtrooms sided Monday with a mother who resisted police forcing their way into her home last March to take her teenage daughter during a dispute with a Child Protective Services worker over medications.
A Family Court judge Monday afternoon accepted positive medical and education reports, and over the objections of an assistant state attorney general representing the Department of Health and Human Services, dismissed jurisdiction that had for nine months come between now 14-year-old Arianna Godboldo and her family.
Earlier Monday, a Wayne County Circuit judge refused to reinstate criminal charges, dismissed in August by a 36th District Court judge, that alleged the mother, Maryanne Godboldo, illegally resisted and assaulted police by allegedly firing a shot at them.
Family members hugged and issued thanks to the judges in both courtrooms, but authorities aren't done pursuing the Godboldos.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's office issued a statement Monday, vowing to make a third appeal to reinstate criminal charges.
And, Family Court Judge Lynne Pierce told Assistant Attorney General Deborah Carley, who complained it appears the girl has never received anything other than homeschooling her entire life, she is not barred from pursuing criminal truancy charges if she feels the parents are flouting state law that required the education of children.
"There may be some more evaluation to be done, but I don't see any more need of this court's continued involvement," Pierce said.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Gregory Bill ruled in the morning against claims by the prosecutor that 36th District Judge Ronald Giles committed judicial error in August when he threw out the criminal charges. Bill said Giles was correct in concluding there was insufficient evidence to order Godboldo to trial.
"It is clear to me that he (Giles) doesn't think the defendant shot at anybody," Bill said, concluding if a shot was fired inside the house, it was fired at the ceiling and perhaps not by the mother.
"Did the child get a hold of the gun? I don't know," Bill said. "There are so many statements that are conflicting evidence, and Judge Giles went out of his way to allow the prosecutor to clear this up."
Godboldo's lawyers have said all along this was about parental rights to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, and the government abused its authority in obtaining an order to take the child without a court hearing. They also said the improper action created a conflict with police that resulted in criminal charges.
"It is absurd," Godboldo lawyer Byron Pitts said about the possibility of another appeal. "Four different judges have said they believe this family did nothing wrong. This includes another District Court judge, Judge (Paula) Humphries, who ruled earlier on some matters. It has been clear to these judges that this all stems from one overzealous caseworker, and continued appeals now border on persecution."
Acting on a call from Wayne County Child Protective Services worker Mia Wenk — who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect — Detroit police officers on March 24 accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them inside. It took hours to talk Godboldo out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.
Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don't normally enforce civil court orders, but they had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.
Bill said his opinion should not be considered as a criticism of Detroit police, but he raised questions about the behavior of the social worker, whom he described as "young." Bill hinted Wenk was impatient, filled out a legal order that was woefully inadequate, broke with established policy by calling 911 to have Detroit police enforce it rather then confront the woman herself, and then misrepresented the meaning of the order to police.
Pierce had ruled in September against the government's claims the mother had committed medical abuse by withholding a controversial anti-psychotic medication. The girl was being treated for a sudden onset of psychotic behavior the mother believes was caused by a bad reaction to immunizations.
Pierce determined Godboldo was within her rights to terminate the voluntary treatment program. The judge ordered the girl returned to the mother's home Sept. 29. A hearing to finalize the juvenile case also is scheduled for later Monday.
Godboldo said Monday she and her daughter had a difficult Sunday night because of heightened anxiety over the coming hearing. She said she hopes authorities will this time accept a judge's assessment of the situation and not appeal again.
"I hope they understand they are affecting people's lives," she said. "They should know of the damage they have done to my daughter because they broke the law."
Godboldo said her daughter had been doing better, but she was continuing to be home schooled because psychiatric troubles continue that she attributes to "effects from the immunizations." She said the girl, who wears a prosthetic leg, continues to enjoy studying dance and music, and playing her conga drums.
"She is coming along," Godboldo said. "She is doing better because she is at home where she belongs."
Source http://www.detnews.com/article/20111212/METRO01/112120383/1409/metro08
Monday, November 14, 2011
Elected Officials Involved In Coverup Penn State Alleged Sexual Abuse Of Young Boys?
Information in this TMZ video suggests that more than university officials may have been involved the coverup at Penn State. It runs until about 21 minutes before it goes off onto another topic.
Judge who freed Jerry Sandusky was Second Mile volunteer
Meanwhile, CEO of former coach Sandusky's youth charity resigns
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Los Angeles Juvenile Court plans to open proceedings to public
Presiding judge seeks transparency and solicits opinions; target date is the end of the month.
By Garrett Therolf
The presiding judge of Los Angeles County's Juvenile Court is preparing to open child dependency proceedings to the public in an effort to improve accountability and transparency in child abuse, neglect and foster care placement cases.
Currently, members of the media and the public are barred from entering dependency courtrooms without court permission. But Judge Michael Nash is proposing a blanket order that would make the hearings open unless someone objects and a judge decides to close the proceeding.
A similar effort to open juvenile courts in Sacramento failed earlier this year when some foster children and the union that represents social workers objected, citing privacy concerns. But Nash, an advocate of government transparency, believes the juvenile courts can be opened under current law.
There is a lot that is not good [in the dependency courts], and that's an understatement," Nash said earlier this year at a Sacramento hearing on the issue. "Too many families do not get reunified.... Too many children and families languish in the system for far too long. Someone might want to know why this is the case."
Nash is soliciting opinions from interested parties by the end of the month, before making his order final.
Janis Spire, executive director of the Alliance for Children's Rights, a nonprofit law firm that works on behalf of foster children, said her organization generally supports Nash's proposal but hopes it can be adjusted to restrict release of identifying information about children, including last names and Social Security numbers.
"The intention of this order and the law is about transparency of the system and the process, never transparency when it comes to the child," she said.
Spire said she also worried that the order will not carry the same weight as state law and might be vulnerable to being overturned.
Under the terms of the proposed order, members of the public would be able to enter any dependency courtroom. If an objection is then raised, the judicial officer will decide what is in the best interest of the child.
"The court will consider such factors as the age of each child, the nature of the allegations, the extent of the present or expected publicity and its effect, if any, on the children and on family reunification," according to the proposed order.
Attendees would not be able to make audio or visual recordings of the proceedings without seeking special court permission, and case records would remain confidential unless the court orders them opened.
Source http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1109-open-courts-20111108,0,3540017.story
By Garrett Therolf
The presiding judge of Los Angeles County's Juvenile Court is preparing to open child dependency proceedings to the public in an effort to improve accountability and transparency in child abuse, neglect and foster care placement cases.
Currently, members of the media and the public are barred from entering dependency courtrooms without court permission. But Judge Michael Nash is proposing a blanket order that would make the hearings open unless someone objects and a judge decides to close the proceeding.
A similar effort to open juvenile courts in Sacramento failed earlier this year when some foster children and the union that represents social workers objected, citing privacy concerns. But Nash, an advocate of government transparency, believes the juvenile courts can be opened under current law.
There is a lot that is not good [in the dependency courts], and that's an understatement," Nash said earlier this year at a Sacramento hearing on the issue. "Too many families do not get reunified.... Too many children and families languish in the system for far too long. Someone might want to know why this is the case."
Nash is soliciting opinions from interested parties by the end of the month, before making his order final.
Janis Spire, executive director of the Alliance for Children's Rights, a nonprofit law firm that works on behalf of foster children, said her organization generally supports Nash's proposal but hopes it can be adjusted to restrict release of identifying information about children, including last names and Social Security numbers.
"The intention of this order and the law is about transparency of the system and the process, never transparency when it comes to the child," she said.
Spire said she also worried that the order will not carry the same weight as state law and might be vulnerable to being overturned.
Under the terms of the proposed order, members of the public would be able to enter any dependency courtroom. If an objection is then raised, the judicial officer will decide what is in the best interest of the child.
"The court will consider such factors as the age of each child, the nature of the allegations, the extent of the present or expected publicity and its effect, if any, on the children and on family reunification," according to the proposed order.
Attendees would not be able to make audio or visual recordings of the proceedings without seeking special court permission, and case records would remain confidential unless the court orders them opened.
Source http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1109-open-courts-20111108,0,3540017.story
Monday, November 7, 2011
State blasted on Western Kentucky girl's slaying
Judge: Abuse ignored before brutal beating
Written by Deborah Yetter
A Franklin Circuit Court judge blasted state officials Monday for ignoring suspected prior abuse of a 9-year-old Western Kentucky girl beaten to death by her adoptive brother, saying they turned a “blind eye” to repeated reports of her horrific mistreatment.
In his second such order in four days, Judge Phillip Shepherd ordered the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to release records of child abuse death investigations — this time in the case of the Feb. 4 murder of Amythz “Amy” Dye. State officials have repeatedly refused to release such records, citing confidentiality.
“This case presents a tragic example of the potentially deadly consequences of a child welfare system that has completely insulated itself from meaningful public scrutiny,” Shepherd said in his order. “The Open Records Act is the only method available by which the public and the legislature can obtain information regarding the systematic breakdown of our child protective services that contributed so directly to this child’s death.”
The order notes cabinet officials had approved Amy’s adoptive home in Todd County, with Kimberly Dye, after removing her from her birth parents because of “severe neglect and sexual abuse.”
“An innocent, nine-year-old girl was brutally beaten to death after enduring months of physical and emotional abuse in a home approved by the Commonwealth of Kentucky for her adoption,” Shepherd wrote.
Cabinet officials received the order Monday and are reviewing it, said spokeswoman Jill Midkiff.
Garrett Dye, 17, Amy’s adoptive brother, pleaded guilty Oct. 21 in Todd Circuit Court to murdering her on Feb. 4 by beating her in the head with a jack handle. At the time, she was outside on a cold, snowy evening shoveling gravel as punishment for stealing pudding and juice from a friend’s lunch box at school, Shepherd’s order said.
Garrett Dye, who was prosecuted as an adult, will be sentenced Nov. 23.
After Amy’s death, police found the girl’s clothes in a dresser in a trailer outside the house, Shepherd’s order said. It said Amy sometimes soiled her clothes because of poor bowel control, and when she did, her adoptive mother — as punishment — forced her to go outside for clean clothes.
Shepherd’s ruling comes after The Todd County Standard sought records from the cabinet about reports of suspected abuse or neglect involving Amy. The cabinet refused to provide the records to the newspaper, initially claiming it had none; but then, after acknowledging it did have records, it claimed they were exempt from open records law.
In his ruling Monday, the judge ordered the cabinet to release the records to the paper, noting that the issues were “identical” to those raised in his ruling Thursday that the cabinet must release records of child abuse deaths and serious injuries to The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald Leader.
In that ruling, he excoriated the cabinet as being “so immersed in the culture of secrecy regarding these issues that it is institutionally incapable of recognizing and implementing the clear requirement of the law.”
The Louisville and Lexington newspapers are seeking the records under a law that permits the disclosure of child abuse and neglect records if a child dies or is seriously injured and if the cabinet had prior involvement with the child or family.
Ryan Craig, publisher and owner of the Todd County newspaper, said the details of Amy’s life and death — outlined in Shepherd’s order — are horrifying.
“Her death was horrible, but it seems like her life must have been just as bad,” Craig said.
He called on Gov. Steve Beshear to look into conduct of the cabinet.
“The governor needs to take a long, hard look at the cabinet,” Craig said. “I think there needs to be some housecleaning.”
At a campaign stop in Louisville Monday evening, Beshear said he hadn't read Shepherd's opinion but planned to take it up with cabinet officials.
“Certainly we are going to be reviewing that decision,” he said.
He declined to fault social service officials. “I know the cabinet works hard in the protection of children,” Beshear said.
In the five years before Amy’s death, reports of suspected abuse or neglect “flooded in,” starting the year after she was adopted by Kimberly Dye, Shepherd’s order said. Some of the reports came from school officials, including a school nurse, and some said she was being beaten by other children in the home. Yet state social workers performed cursory inquiries and took no action, his order said.
Kimberly Dye, who shared the home with her ex-husband, Christopher, could not be reached for comment. The family’s phone has been disconnected.
The reports cited by Shepherd included a May 2, 2007, letter from a school nurse detailing six separate reports she made of suspected abuse to Amy. The nurse reported injuries such as severe bruises, thumbprints on the girl’s face and scraped and peeling skin.
The nurse said Amy told her she had been hurt by another child in the home and her mother threatened to spank her if she told anyone. Amy then lived with two adoptive brothers, Garrett Dye, and an older brother not identified in Shepherd’s order.
The order said most of the abuse allegations involved the older brother, not Garrett Dye.
The cabinet dismissed the complaints as “child against child” altercations or accepted Kimberly Dye’s explanation that Amy fell or that the girl “bruises easily and plays rough with her brothers,” the order said.
“It is stunning to believe that the cabinet will refuse to protect a child from repeated acts of physical violence when the parent knows of and tolerates such abuse and does nothing to prevent it,” Shepherd’s order said. “Yet that is exactly what happened here.”
The case also appears to be the second in which the cabinet failed to conduct a fatality review required by law when a child dies or is seriously injured from abuse or neglect and the cabinet had prior involvement with the family.
The Courier-Journal and Herald-Leader filed suit in 2009, seeking the cabinet’s records of its investigation of the death of a Wayne County toddler who died after drinking drain cleaner at an alleged meth lab where he lived with his teenage parents. Both the child and his teen mother had been under the cabinet’s supervision.
The cabinet fought the newspapers’ request, citing confidentiality. After Shepherd ordered the cabinet to release the fatality report, cabinet officials acknowledged they never conducted the investigation required by state law.
In Amy’s case, cabinet officials concluded that they had no obligation to conduct such a review, Shepherd’s order said.
Attorney Jon Fleischaker, who represented the Todd County newspaper along with lawyer Jeremy Rogers, said Monday’s ruling is clear, yet the cabinet continues to litigate a battle it lost in 2010 when Shepherd first ordered it to release such records.
“They are using tax dollars to defend the indefensible,” said Fleischaker, who also represents The Courier-Journal.
Source http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111107/NEWS01/311070081/State-blasted-Western-Kentucky-girl-s-slaying?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome
Written by Deborah Yetter
A Franklin Circuit Court judge blasted state officials Monday for ignoring suspected prior abuse of a 9-year-old Western Kentucky girl beaten to death by her adoptive brother, saying they turned a “blind eye” to repeated reports of her horrific mistreatment.
In his second such order in four days, Judge Phillip Shepherd ordered the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to release records of child abuse death investigations — this time in the case of the Feb. 4 murder of Amythz “Amy” Dye. State officials have repeatedly refused to release such records, citing confidentiality.
“This case presents a tragic example of the potentially deadly consequences of a child welfare system that has completely insulated itself from meaningful public scrutiny,” Shepherd said in his order. “The Open Records Act is the only method available by which the public and the legislature can obtain information regarding the systematic breakdown of our child protective services that contributed so directly to this child’s death.”
The order notes cabinet officials had approved Amy’s adoptive home in Todd County, with Kimberly Dye, after removing her from her birth parents because of “severe neglect and sexual abuse.”
“An innocent, nine-year-old girl was brutally beaten to death after enduring months of physical and emotional abuse in a home approved by the Commonwealth of Kentucky for her adoption,” Shepherd wrote.
Cabinet officials received the order Monday and are reviewing it, said spokeswoman Jill Midkiff.
Garrett Dye, 17, Amy’s adoptive brother, pleaded guilty Oct. 21 in Todd Circuit Court to murdering her on Feb. 4 by beating her in the head with a jack handle. At the time, she was outside on a cold, snowy evening shoveling gravel as punishment for stealing pudding and juice from a friend’s lunch box at school, Shepherd’s order said.
Garrett Dye, who was prosecuted as an adult, will be sentenced Nov. 23.
After Amy’s death, police found the girl’s clothes in a dresser in a trailer outside the house, Shepherd’s order said. It said Amy sometimes soiled her clothes because of poor bowel control, and when she did, her adoptive mother — as punishment — forced her to go outside for clean clothes.
Shepherd’s ruling comes after The Todd County Standard sought records from the cabinet about reports of suspected abuse or neglect involving Amy. The cabinet refused to provide the records to the newspaper, initially claiming it had none; but then, after acknowledging it did have records, it claimed they were exempt from open records law.
In his ruling Monday, the judge ordered the cabinet to release the records to the paper, noting that the issues were “identical” to those raised in his ruling Thursday that the cabinet must release records of child abuse deaths and serious injuries to The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald Leader.
In that ruling, he excoriated the cabinet as being “so immersed in the culture of secrecy regarding these issues that it is institutionally incapable of recognizing and implementing the clear requirement of the law.”
The Louisville and Lexington newspapers are seeking the records under a law that permits the disclosure of child abuse and neglect records if a child dies or is seriously injured and if the cabinet had prior involvement with the child or family.
Ryan Craig, publisher and owner of the Todd County newspaper, said the details of Amy’s life and death — outlined in Shepherd’s order — are horrifying.
“Her death was horrible, but it seems like her life must have been just as bad,” Craig said.
He called on Gov. Steve Beshear to look into conduct of the cabinet.
“The governor needs to take a long, hard look at the cabinet,” Craig said. “I think there needs to be some housecleaning.”
At a campaign stop in Louisville Monday evening, Beshear said he hadn't read Shepherd's opinion but planned to take it up with cabinet officials.
“Certainly we are going to be reviewing that decision,” he said.
He declined to fault social service officials. “I know the cabinet works hard in the protection of children,” Beshear said.
In the five years before Amy’s death, reports of suspected abuse or neglect “flooded in,” starting the year after she was adopted by Kimberly Dye, Shepherd’s order said. Some of the reports came from school officials, including a school nurse, and some said she was being beaten by other children in the home. Yet state social workers performed cursory inquiries and took no action, his order said.
Kimberly Dye, who shared the home with her ex-husband, Christopher, could not be reached for comment. The family’s phone has been disconnected.
The reports cited by Shepherd included a May 2, 2007, letter from a school nurse detailing six separate reports she made of suspected abuse to Amy. The nurse reported injuries such as severe bruises, thumbprints on the girl’s face and scraped and peeling skin.
The nurse said Amy told her she had been hurt by another child in the home and her mother threatened to spank her if she told anyone. Amy then lived with two adoptive brothers, Garrett Dye, and an older brother not identified in Shepherd’s order.
The order said most of the abuse allegations involved the older brother, not Garrett Dye.
The cabinet dismissed the complaints as “child against child” altercations or accepted Kimberly Dye’s explanation that Amy fell or that the girl “bruises easily and plays rough with her brothers,” the order said.
“It is stunning to believe that the cabinet will refuse to protect a child from repeated acts of physical violence when the parent knows of and tolerates such abuse and does nothing to prevent it,” Shepherd’s order said. “Yet that is exactly what happened here.”
The case also appears to be the second in which the cabinet failed to conduct a fatality review required by law when a child dies or is seriously injured from abuse or neglect and the cabinet had prior involvement with the family.
The Courier-Journal and Herald-Leader filed suit in 2009, seeking the cabinet’s records of its investigation of the death of a Wayne County toddler who died after drinking drain cleaner at an alleged meth lab where he lived with his teenage parents. Both the child and his teen mother had been under the cabinet’s supervision.
The cabinet fought the newspapers’ request, citing confidentiality. After Shepherd ordered the cabinet to release the fatality report, cabinet officials acknowledged they never conducted the investigation required by state law.
In Amy’s case, cabinet officials concluded that they had no obligation to conduct such a review, Shepherd’s order said.
Attorney Jon Fleischaker, who represented the Todd County newspaper along with lawyer Jeremy Rogers, said Monday’s ruling is clear, yet the cabinet continues to litigate a battle it lost in 2010 when Shepherd first ordered it to release such records.
“They are using tax dollars to defend the indefensible,” said Fleischaker, who also represents The Courier-Journal.
Source http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111107/NEWS01/311070081/State-blasted-Western-Kentucky-girl-s-slaying?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome
Friday, November 4, 2011
Unprecedented: N.J. judges find foster parents have no say in child placement
Blog authors note:
Finally, it's about time! Most blood relatives have no say in these kangaroo courts so why do foster parents get a say in them? They are just glorified babysitters for the state kidnappers! Hopefully, this will carry over to all states. Then it would be nice if they would allow legal blood relatives to chime in about placement - that is when the best interests of the child will truly be served. Blood families should never be replaced if they are willing and capable of providing everything necessary for the child.
-----
By Jerry DeMarco
The hearts of New Jersey foster parents are in the right place, but that doesn’t give them a say in placement hearings, a state appeals court has ruled in an unprecedented decision stemming from a Hudson County case.
The “resource parents,” as parents are called in the state’s courts, have “no independent legal interest” when a judge is weighing where to place youngsters from troubled situations, the Appellate Division determined. That responsibility belongs to a law guardian appointed by DYFS.
"The importance of the essential role of resource parents in the child placement arena is unquestioned," Judge Marie Lihotz wrote. "However, the legal rights of such caregivers in securing an undisturbed relationship with a child placed in their home [are] very limited."
The decision was brought on by a Hudson County judge’s refusal to allow two foster parents a say in a hearing that removed a child from her drug-addicted parents and placed the girl with her aunt.
The youngster, now 2, was born on July 16, 2009 with cocaine and other drugs in her system, which put her into a hospital for six weeks. She ended up with the foster parents while DYFS moved to remove her parents’ biological rights.
The foster parents requested "full participation" in proceedings aimed at final placement of the girl, calling themselves "indispensible parties" and "psychological parents."
They said they had plenty of information to share, wanted to review expert reports produced by DYFS and requested they be allowed to retain their own expert. They also gave the judge statements from a pediatrician.
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Foti in Jersey City allowed them to speak, and to attend various hearings, but said their participation ended there. Their testimony couldn’t carry any weight in the ultimate decision, in which the girl was taken from them on April 21. 2011, Foti ruled.
They appealed.
The appeals judges backed Foti, saying the foster parents “should be given the opportunity to let the judge know their wishes during the best-interests hearing.” They noted that "Foti evaluated the competence, sensitivity, patience, responsiveness and devotion of all possible caregivers."
They even went so far as to say that it would hurt the girl somewhat to be removed "from the loving care" of the foster parents.
In the end, however, the appeals judges said Foti "properly balanced the evidence of all necessary considerations and was not merely a preference for a relative placement over care by her resource parents."
What's more, they said, DYFS clearly spells out in its contract that foster parents don’t have the legal right to seek adoption.
The foster parents "opened their home" to the girl, identified in court papers as V.B., "who then stole their hearts," the judges wrote.
"The protective services system values adults like [them], who have optimally fulfilled their role as resource parents. The commitment, care, sacrifice and unconditional love [they] nobly conferred on V.B. will forever alter the course of her life. Nevertheless, the emotional ties that unavoidably developed neither result in psychological parent status nor otherwise confer an interest permitting standing to intervene in a interests hearing."
Source http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/hudson/2981-unprecedented-nj-judges-find-foster-parents-have-no-say-in-child-placement
Finally, it's about time! Most blood relatives have no say in these kangaroo courts so why do foster parents get a say in them? They are just glorified babysitters for the state kidnappers! Hopefully, this will carry over to all states. Then it would be nice if they would allow legal blood relatives to chime in about placement - that is when the best interests of the child will truly be served. Blood families should never be replaced if they are willing and capable of providing everything necessary for the child.
-----
By Jerry DeMarco
The hearts of New Jersey foster parents are in the right place, but that doesn’t give them a say in placement hearings, a state appeals court has ruled in an unprecedented decision stemming from a Hudson County case.
The “resource parents,” as parents are called in the state’s courts, have “no independent legal interest” when a judge is weighing where to place youngsters from troubled situations, the Appellate Division determined. That responsibility belongs to a law guardian appointed by DYFS.
"The importance of the essential role of resource parents in the child placement arena is unquestioned," Judge Marie Lihotz wrote. "However, the legal rights of such caregivers in securing an undisturbed relationship with a child placed in their home [are] very limited."
The decision was brought on by a Hudson County judge’s refusal to allow two foster parents a say in a hearing that removed a child from her drug-addicted parents and placed the girl with her aunt.
The youngster, now 2, was born on July 16, 2009 with cocaine and other drugs in her system, which put her into a hospital for six weeks. She ended up with the foster parents while DYFS moved to remove her parents’ biological rights.
The foster parents requested "full participation" in proceedings aimed at final placement of the girl, calling themselves "indispensible parties" and "psychological parents."
They said they had plenty of information to share, wanted to review expert reports produced by DYFS and requested they be allowed to retain their own expert. They also gave the judge statements from a pediatrician.
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Foti in Jersey City allowed them to speak, and to attend various hearings, but said their participation ended there. Their testimony couldn’t carry any weight in the ultimate decision, in which the girl was taken from them on April 21. 2011, Foti ruled.
They appealed.
The appeals judges backed Foti, saying the foster parents “should be given the opportunity to let the judge know their wishes during the best-interests hearing.” They noted that "Foti evaluated the competence, sensitivity, patience, responsiveness and devotion of all possible caregivers."
They even went so far as to say that it would hurt the girl somewhat to be removed "from the loving care" of the foster parents.
In the end, however, the appeals judges said Foti "properly balanced the evidence of all necessary considerations and was not merely a preference for a relative placement over care by her resource parents."
What's more, they said, DYFS clearly spells out in its contract that foster parents don’t have the legal right to seek adoption.
The foster parents "opened their home" to the girl, identified in court papers as V.B., "who then stole their hearts," the judges wrote.
"The protective services system values adults like [them], who have optimally fulfilled their role as resource parents. The commitment, care, sacrifice and unconditional love [they] nobly conferred on V.B. will forever alter the course of her life. Nevertheless, the emotional ties that unavoidably developed neither result in psychological parent status nor otherwise confer an interest permitting standing to intervene in a interests hearing."
Source http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/hudson/2981-unprecedented-nj-judges-find-foster-parents-have-no-say-in-child-placement
Lawmaker: Mom’s struggle to keep her children shows problems with DCFS
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Price • This is what Jennifer and Brandon Stark brought in a plastic grocery sack as goodbye gifts for their four boys: a few rocks for their oldest son’s collection, puzzles, piggy banks, crayons and letters expressing their love.
On Oct. 25, a week after a judge terminated their parental rights and 14 months after the state Division of Child and Family Services first investigated the couple for alleged drug use and neglect, the Starks saw their sons for what may be the last time.
The case has caught the attention of parental rights advocates and a state legislator who says it exemplifies the way the court and child welfare systems work against parents, especially those with limited resources.
"She lost her children and her major crime was she didn’t have a job and a driver’s license and was therefore dependent on her husband," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price. "I just found it astonishing in a very negative way."
Among troubling aspects of the case, according to Watkins, is the amount of time the parents were given to regain their children, the children’s placement with foster parents rather than relatives and the high rate of children in foster care in the region.
The Starks plan to appeal the placement of their boys, who range in age from 6 years to 7 months, with foster parents and say their attorney is optimistic. But odds of success are slim: 97 percent of parental rights terminations are upheld, according to DCFS. The division doesn’t track appeals challenging placements.
Watkins said she began investigating the DCFS Eastern Region, which includes Carbon and Emery counties, about 18 months ago after being overwhelmed with complaints from constituents.
"If you don’t do everything they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it, then you’re done," said Watkins. "They will take your kids. It is tragic."
"There were a lot of things very wrong here," she said. "I worked with the state director, and a lot of changes have been made."
Among those changes: appointment of a new region director about nine months ago. But Watkins is still concerned and is already drafting legislation to address what she sees as flaws in the system. Among them, she says, is the lack of funds put into home services to help families stay together.
Last year, DCFS spent $94 million on foster care and kinship support services, but just $7 million on in-home services to help families correct problems that put their children in jeopardy.
Brent Platt, DCFS director, said he believes with a new director in place, the Eastern Region office is "moving in the right direction, but it takes time. He [the new director] is working closely with the Price office and trying to rebuild that relationship with the community."
It is unclear what, if any, effect the region’s problems played in the Stark case. The division’s stated preference is that in-home services be provided so that children remain with their parents and, if that is not possible, that they be placed with relatives.
Liz Sollis, DCFS spokeswoman, said she couldn’t legally comment on the Stark case specifically other than to note it is the juvenile justice system that ultimately decides what happens in child welfare cases.
That leaves the Starks, who provided some documentation to back their account, and their supporters to tell what happened.
The allegations • The Starks, both in their mid-20s, had three sons in August 2010 when police and child protective service workers first investigated them for alleged drug use and child neglect.
At the time, the Starks had been together for eight years and married for more than two years. Jennifer Stark, pregnant with their fourth child, was employed at a care center while Brandon Stark looked after the kids and ferried his wife to and from work. It was alleged they left the children alone during those trips, which they deny.
When the Starks refused to take drug tests, the state placed their three sons in a temporary shelter. The couple quickly relented.
As with many child welfare cases, some facts are disputed but not this one: as alleged, Brandon Stark periodically used marijuana, methamphetamine and opiate drugs. Over eight months, Brandon Stark was drug tested at least 34 times; about half his tests were positive. Jennifer Stark, in contrast, went through more than 16 drug tests, and each was negative.
After his first positive test, DCFS required Brandon Stark to separate from his wife and children and get drug treatment; he moved in with a friend, got a job at a fast-food restaurant and entered drug counseling.
The couple had moved out of their rented home, and Jennifer had lost her job. Her service plan was to find a place to live, get a job and sign up for counseling and peer parenting support.
Right from the start, Jennifer Stark, whose siblings and parents live in Ohio, asked her caseworker to consider placing the children with her sister, who was more than willing to take them.
"But we never heard from her," said Kim Kisseberth of Findlay, Ohio, one of Jennifer Stark’s nine siblings.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stark found a place to rent, paid for by her husband, and in late September the boys were returned to her care; about a month later, Brandon Stark was allowed to move back in with his family.
The setbacks • As winter set in, Brandon Stark’s $8 an-hour job wasn’t enough to cover rent, utilities and $50 a week for his drug treatment program. The Starks moved to a cheaper place but were still underwater financially.
"It was either rent for us or it was his drug treatment," Jennifer Stark said. Brandon Stark dropped out of the program and couldn’t afford a second $140 drug assessment the state requested, she said. He soon relapsed.
DCFS drew up a new service plan allowing Brandon Stark to stay with his family as long as he re-entered drug treatment. A caseworker suggested he find a better-paying job or take on a second job to pay for the program and the family’s monthly expenses, according to the couple.
By mid-March, when Jennifer Stark gave birth to their fourth son, Brandon Stark had stopped participating in drug tests and was once again barred from living with his family. Jennifer Stark said she agreed to a new service plan only after the caseworker threatened to remove her children.
"I had no job, no means of transportation because I don’t have my driver’s license and was living far from everyone I know, trying to handle four kids by myself and stay as mentally stable as I could under the conditions," Jennifer Stark said. The caseworker’s advice? Rely on friends, family and the community for childcare, transportation and support, she said.
Jennifer Stark said she was told "something was wrong with me that I was with someone like [Brandon] and hadn’t seen the signs" of his substance abuse.
In early May, a caseworker found Brandon Stark at the home — though Jennifer Stark claims he had just stopped by to drop off a rent check — and the division again took custody of the four children, placing them with a foster family in Orem.
"We were told there were no foster families in this area equipped to take four kids," Jennifer Stark said — something DCFS acknowledges is a problem in rural areas.
A new service plan was drawn up, which looked much like the others: drug treatment for him, increased independence for her through learning to drive, getting a job, counseling. A permanency hearing, when decisions are made about whether to continue efforts to reunify a family, was set for late August.
"I was looking for jobs as much as I could," Jennifer Stark said. With public school out until fall, there was no chance she’d finish driver education and get her license in time.
And Brandon Stark’s plan "failed right off the get-go," Jennifer Stark said. He spent six weeks in jail this summer after falling behind in restitution payments in connection with a March 2010 misdemeanor shoplifting offense, according to court records.
For Jennifer Stark, the result was lost financial support and transportation to job interviews and to visits with their children in Orem. The state suggested she move into a women’s shelter.
"I was offended," Jennifer Stark said. "I had a roof over my head and Brandon was in jail at the time. So why?"
Still, she agreed to check it out.
"I was told I would have to cut all ties [with other family], on top of losing my kids, my husband and everything," Jennifer Stark said. "I didn’t want to lose my mother-in-law and what little support I had. They couldn’t guarantee transportation for anything. They said I would get a month [at the shelter] and then they’d try to find me a place to go. I said no."
But the decision to stick with her husband and stay out of the shelter proved to be more strikes against her, Jennifer Stark said, resulting in caseworkers describing her as "co-dependent."
It’s one of the issues that irks Watkins. "Are we helping families or are we destroying families?" she said.
Kisseberth said she’d offered over the years to help Jennifer when her relationship was in trouble, but her sister would "always say we were raised to not divorce that easily, that she was going to hold it together. She’d said, ‘So what if I leave him and one day my boys are coming to me saying, ‘Why did you take us away from our dad?’ "
The outcome • By June, the Kisseberths had completed all the steps necessary to be a kinship placement and were on track to be certified as foster and adoptive parents by the August hearing, which the state helped pay for them to attend.
The Kisseberths had remodeled their home, completed a home inspection, background check, foster parenting classes and interstate paperwork, and lined up daycare and other support. They had never met the three youngest children and hadn’t seen the oldest boy since he was a toddler but began building a relationship through weekly phone calls over the summer. They also sent a photo album introducing them to their extended family.
Kisseberth said that at the August hearing, the Starks’ caseworker, the state’s attorney and the couple’s attorney all recommended that the boys live with them.
Jennifer Stark said she acknowledged at the hearing that neither she nor Brandon were currently able to provide for their children — an admission they were told would increase odds of their children being placed in the custody of her sister.
People who had worked with the Starks and their children submitted letters describing them as well-bonded and, in Jennifer’s case, as making "a good amount of progress in a short time to be reunited with her children."
But days after the August hearing, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen sided with the children’s guardian ad litem, who recommended the boys stay with the foster family with whom they had spent the previous four months and who are interested in adopting them.
"When they take the kids away from us, and put them in foster care, they don’t have any ties, they don’t know the foster parents," Jennifer Stark said. "What would have been the difference with my sister and her husband?"
On Oct. 18, the Starks’ parental rights were terminated. Days later, they bid their boys goodbye.
"Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I don’t feel it was bad enough to lose our children forever," Brandon Stark said.
His wife, he said, did "everything in her power and it was still not good enough for the state because she chose to stick with me. ... All we can do is hope and pray for the appeal to go through and hope her sister will get them so we can see them again."
Their last meeting with the boys was just a half-hour, and they were warned by a caseworker to not make promises, to not talk about the future, to leave their sons’ questions about when they might visit again unanswered, to leave Jennifer Stark’s tears unexplained.
That left them with these words: "Just, ‘Love you,’ " a weeping Jennifer Start said afterward. " ‘No matter what, we love you.’ "
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52788018-78/stark-jennifer-brandon-foster.html.csp?page=1
The Salt Lake Tribune
Price • This is what Jennifer and Brandon Stark brought in a plastic grocery sack as goodbye gifts for their four boys: a few rocks for their oldest son’s collection, puzzles, piggy banks, crayons and letters expressing their love.
On Oct. 25, a week after a judge terminated their parental rights and 14 months after the state Division of Child and Family Services first investigated the couple for alleged drug use and neglect, the Starks saw their sons for what may be the last time.
The case has caught the attention of parental rights advocates and a state legislator who says it exemplifies the way the court and child welfare systems work against parents, especially those with limited resources.
"She lost her children and her major crime was she didn’t have a job and a driver’s license and was therefore dependent on her husband," said Rep. Christine F. Watkins, D-Price. "I just found it astonishing in a very negative way."
Among troubling aspects of the case, according to Watkins, is the amount of time the parents were given to regain their children, the children’s placement with foster parents rather than relatives and the high rate of children in foster care in the region.
The Starks plan to appeal the placement of their boys, who range in age from 6 years to 7 months, with foster parents and say their attorney is optimistic. But odds of success are slim: 97 percent of parental rights terminations are upheld, according to DCFS. The division doesn’t track appeals challenging placements.
Watkins said she began investigating the DCFS Eastern Region, which includes Carbon and Emery counties, about 18 months ago after being overwhelmed with complaints from constituents.
"If you don’t do everything they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it, then you’re done," said Watkins. "They will take your kids. It is tragic."
"There were a lot of things very wrong here," she said. "I worked with the state director, and a lot of changes have been made."
Among those changes: appointment of a new region director about nine months ago. But Watkins is still concerned and is already drafting legislation to address what she sees as flaws in the system. Among them, she says, is the lack of funds put into home services to help families stay together.
Last year, DCFS spent $94 million on foster care and kinship support services, but just $7 million on in-home services to help families correct problems that put their children in jeopardy.
Brent Platt, DCFS director, said he believes with a new director in place, the Eastern Region office is "moving in the right direction, but it takes time. He [the new director] is working closely with the Price office and trying to rebuild that relationship with the community."
It is unclear what, if any, effect the region’s problems played in the Stark case. The division’s stated preference is that in-home services be provided so that children remain with their parents and, if that is not possible, that they be placed with relatives.
Liz Sollis, DCFS spokeswoman, said she couldn’t legally comment on the Stark case specifically other than to note it is the juvenile justice system that ultimately decides what happens in child welfare cases.
That leaves the Starks, who provided some documentation to back their account, and their supporters to tell what happened.
The allegations • The Starks, both in their mid-20s, had three sons in August 2010 when police and child protective service workers first investigated them for alleged drug use and child neglect.
At the time, the Starks had been together for eight years and married for more than two years. Jennifer Stark, pregnant with their fourth child, was employed at a care center while Brandon Stark looked after the kids and ferried his wife to and from work. It was alleged they left the children alone during those trips, which they deny.
When the Starks refused to take drug tests, the state placed their three sons in a temporary shelter. The couple quickly relented.
As with many child welfare cases, some facts are disputed but not this one: as alleged, Brandon Stark periodically used marijuana, methamphetamine and opiate drugs. Over eight months, Brandon Stark was drug tested at least 34 times; about half his tests were positive. Jennifer Stark, in contrast, went through more than 16 drug tests, and each was negative.
After his first positive test, DCFS required Brandon Stark to separate from his wife and children and get drug treatment; he moved in with a friend, got a job at a fast-food restaurant and entered drug counseling.
The couple had moved out of their rented home, and Jennifer had lost her job. Her service plan was to find a place to live, get a job and sign up for counseling and peer parenting support.
Right from the start, Jennifer Stark, whose siblings and parents live in Ohio, asked her caseworker to consider placing the children with her sister, who was more than willing to take them.
"But we never heard from her," said Kim Kisseberth of Findlay, Ohio, one of Jennifer Stark’s nine siblings.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stark found a place to rent, paid for by her husband, and in late September the boys were returned to her care; about a month later, Brandon Stark was allowed to move back in with his family.
The setbacks • As winter set in, Brandon Stark’s $8 an-hour job wasn’t enough to cover rent, utilities and $50 a week for his drug treatment program. The Starks moved to a cheaper place but were still underwater financially.
"It was either rent for us or it was his drug treatment," Jennifer Stark said. Brandon Stark dropped out of the program and couldn’t afford a second $140 drug assessment the state requested, she said. He soon relapsed.
DCFS drew up a new service plan allowing Brandon Stark to stay with his family as long as he re-entered drug treatment. A caseworker suggested he find a better-paying job or take on a second job to pay for the program and the family’s monthly expenses, according to the couple.
By mid-March, when Jennifer Stark gave birth to their fourth son, Brandon Stark had stopped participating in drug tests and was once again barred from living with his family. Jennifer Stark said she agreed to a new service plan only after the caseworker threatened to remove her children.
"I had no job, no means of transportation because I don’t have my driver’s license and was living far from everyone I know, trying to handle four kids by myself and stay as mentally stable as I could under the conditions," Jennifer Stark said. The caseworker’s advice? Rely on friends, family and the community for childcare, transportation and support, she said.
Jennifer Stark said she was told "something was wrong with me that I was with someone like [Brandon] and hadn’t seen the signs" of his substance abuse.
In early May, a caseworker found Brandon Stark at the home — though Jennifer Stark claims he had just stopped by to drop off a rent check — and the division again took custody of the four children, placing them with a foster family in Orem.
"We were told there were no foster families in this area equipped to take four kids," Jennifer Stark said — something DCFS acknowledges is a problem in rural areas.
A new service plan was drawn up, which looked much like the others: drug treatment for him, increased independence for her through learning to drive, getting a job, counseling. A permanency hearing, when decisions are made about whether to continue efforts to reunify a family, was set for late August.
"I was looking for jobs as much as I could," Jennifer Stark said. With public school out until fall, there was no chance she’d finish driver education and get her license in time.
And Brandon Stark’s plan "failed right off the get-go," Jennifer Stark said. He spent six weeks in jail this summer after falling behind in restitution payments in connection with a March 2010 misdemeanor shoplifting offense, according to court records.
For Jennifer Stark, the result was lost financial support and transportation to job interviews and to visits with their children in Orem. The state suggested she move into a women’s shelter.
"I was offended," Jennifer Stark said. "I had a roof over my head and Brandon was in jail at the time. So why?"
Still, she agreed to check it out.
"I was told I would have to cut all ties [with other family], on top of losing my kids, my husband and everything," Jennifer Stark said. "I didn’t want to lose my mother-in-law and what little support I had. They couldn’t guarantee transportation for anything. They said I would get a month [at the shelter] and then they’d try to find me a place to go. I said no."
But the decision to stick with her husband and stay out of the shelter proved to be more strikes against her, Jennifer Stark said, resulting in caseworkers describing her as "co-dependent."
It’s one of the issues that irks Watkins. "Are we helping families or are we destroying families?" she said.
Kisseberth said she’d offered over the years to help Jennifer when her relationship was in trouble, but her sister would "always say we were raised to not divorce that easily, that she was going to hold it together. She’d said, ‘So what if I leave him and one day my boys are coming to me saying, ‘Why did you take us away from our dad?’ "
The outcome • By June, the Kisseberths had completed all the steps necessary to be a kinship placement and were on track to be certified as foster and adoptive parents by the August hearing, which the state helped pay for them to attend.
The Kisseberths had remodeled their home, completed a home inspection, background check, foster parenting classes and interstate paperwork, and lined up daycare and other support. They had never met the three youngest children and hadn’t seen the oldest boy since he was a toddler but began building a relationship through weekly phone calls over the summer. They also sent a photo album introducing them to their extended family.
Kisseberth said that at the August hearing, the Starks’ caseworker, the state’s attorney and the couple’s attorney all recommended that the boys live with them.
Jennifer Stark said she acknowledged at the hearing that neither she nor Brandon were currently able to provide for their children — an admission they were told would increase odds of their children being placed in the custody of her sister.
People who had worked with the Starks and their children submitted letters describing them as well-bonded and, in Jennifer’s case, as making "a good amount of progress in a short time to be reunited with her children."
But days after the August hearing, 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen sided with the children’s guardian ad litem, who recommended the boys stay with the foster family with whom they had spent the previous four months and who are interested in adopting them.
"When they take the kids away from us, and put them in foster care, they don’t have any ties, they don’t know the foster parents," Jennifer Stark said. "What would have been the difference with my sister and her husband?"
On Oct. 18, the Starks’ parental rights were terminated. Days later, they bid their boys goodbye.
"Yeah, I made some mistakes, but I don’t feel it was bad enough to lose our children forever," Brandon Stark said.
His wife, he said, did "everything in her power and it was still not good enough for the state because she chose to stick with me. ... All we can do is hope and pray for the appeal to go through and hope her sister will get them so we can see them again."
Their last meeting with the boys was just a half-hour, and they were warned by a caseworker to not make promises, to not talk about the future, to leave their sons’ questions about when they might visit again unanswered, to leave Jennifer Stark’s tears unexplained.
That left them with these words: "Just, ‘Love you,’ " a weeping Jennifer Start said afterward. " ‘No matter what, we love you.’ "
Source http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/52788018-78/stark-jennifer-brandon-foster.html.csp?page=1
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Police Won't File Charges Against Texas Judge Caught on Video Beating Daughter
Associated Press
Police say a Texas judge who was secretly videotaped beating his teenage daughter seven years ago won't face charges because the statutes of limitations have passed.
Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe said Thursday that Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams likely would have been charged with causing injury to a child and other assault offenses if the five-year statutes of limitations hadn't expired.
Adams is still being investigated by the state Department of Family and Protective Services, which has requested he not preside over any of its cases.
Adams' 23-year-old daughter, Hillary, posted the 8-minute clip of the 2004 beating on YouTube last week that shows her father savagely lash her 17 times with a belt.
Hillary Adams says that until last week, only a couple of close friends knew about the savage beating she received seven years ago from her father, a Texas judge who handles child abuse cases.
Adams says the outpouring of support and encouragement she's received since posting the video online last week is tempered by the sadness that it's her father lashing her with a belt and threatening to beat her "into submission." The video had been watched nearly 2 million times by Thursday morning.
"I'm experiencing some regret because I just pulled the covers off my own father's misbehavior after so many people thought he was such a good person. ... But so many people are also telling me I did the right thing," she told The Associated Press outside her mother's home in the Gulf Coast town of Portland, near Corpus Christi.
"He's supposed to be a judge who exercises fit judgment," she said."I cannot stress enough -- I cannot repeat myself enough, that he just needs help."
And she said the videoed attack was not a one-off. "It did happen regularly for a period of time," she told NBC's "Today" show on Thursday.
In the same interview, Hallie Adams blamed her ex-husband's bouts of violence on his "addiction," calling it a "family secret." She did not elaborate. Their 22-year marriage ended in 2007.
The judge did not return an AP reporter's call seeking comment early Thursday.
Police in Rockport, where the 51-year-old judge lives, opened an investigation Wednesday after receiving calls from several concerned citizens, Police Chief Tim Jayroe said.
William Adams has been receiving threatening phone calls and faxes at the courthouse since the video went online, Aransas County Sheriff Bill Mills said.
No one answered the door Wednesday at the judge's home, repeated calls to his office rang unanswered and his attorney, William Dudley, did not respond to phone messages seeking comment. A neighbor said she saw Adams and his girlfriend packing luggage, a briefcase and rifles into their truck.
Corpus Christi television station KZTV caught up with the judge while he was getting into his vehicle Wednesday, and he confirmed it was him in the video. But he said it "looks worse than it is" and that he doesn't expect to be disciplined.
"In my mind, I haven't done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing," Adams said. "And I did lose my temper, but I've since apologized."
When told of her father's comments, Hillary Adams said, "it's a shining perfect example of his personality and he believes he can do no wrong. ... He will cover up rather than admit to what he did and try to come clean."
She stressed that she did not post the video as revenge and does not want her father punished. Rather, she did it because she thinks it will force him to seek help, and because he has been harassing her and she thought posting the clip would make that stop.
"We need to reach out to victims and the abusers themselves to get people to realize what it actually is," she said. Hillary, who was 16 at the time, said she secretly videotaped the beating in her bedroom because she "knew something was about to happen." She says her parents were angry at her for using her computer to download pirated content over the Internet.
In the clip's opening seconds, William Adams is heard telling Hillary's mother, "Go get the belt. The big one. I'm going to spank her now." With belt in hand, he turns off the light and tries forcing his daughter to bend over the bed to be beaten, but she refuses.
"Lay down or I'll spank you in your (expletive) face," Adams screams while he lashes her with sweeping blows across the legs, ignoring her wails and pleas for him to stop.
A few minutes into the video, Hillary's mother barks at her to "turn over like a 16-year-old and take it! Like a grown woman!" For about a minute, the ordeal appears to have ended after both parents leave the room and shut the door. But the judge then storms back into the room and the beating resumes.
Hallie Adams said she was "completely brainwashed and controlled" by her ex-husband.
"I did every single thing that he did," she told NBC. Hillary Adams said she is not angry at her mother.
Child advocates roundly condemned the beating as abuse. But investigators may decide that the judge's actions, while shocking, weren't criminal.
The lines between what's deemed child abuse and what's considered an acceptable level of discipline differ across the country and among various social groups, though the use of objects such as belts and sticks is usually seen as beyond any normal physical punishment, said David Finkelhor, a University of New Hampshire sociology professor who heads the school's Crimes against Children Research Center.
Adams, Aransas County's top judge, was elected in 2001 and has dealt with at least 349 family law cases in the past year alone, nearly 50 of which involved state caseworkers seeking determine whether parents were fit to raise their children.
Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the state Department of Family and Protective Services, said in an email that the agency is aware of the video and "will take the appropriate steps in this matter." He said the agency would have no further comment.
Source http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/texas-judge-caught-on-video-beating-daughter-needs-help/
Police say a Texas judge who was secretly videotaped beating his teenage daughter seven years ago won't face charges because the statutes of limitations have passed.
Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe said Thursday that Aransas County Court-at-Law Judge William Adams likely would have been charged with causing injury to a child and other assault offenses if the five-year statutes of limitations hadn't expired.
Adams is still being investigated by the state Department of Family and Protective Services, which has requested he not preside over any of its cases.
Adams' 23-year-old daughter, Hillary, posted the 8-minute clip of the 2004 beating on YouTube last week that shows her father savagely lash her 17 times with a belt.
Hillary Adams says that until last week, only a couple of close friends knew about the savage beating she received seven years ago from her father, a Texas judge who handles child abuse cases.
Adams says the outpouring of support and encouragement she's received since posting the video online last week is tempered by the sadness that it's her father lashing her with a belt and threatening to beat her "into submission." The video had been watched nearly 2 million times by Thursday morning.
"I'm experiencing some regret because I just pulled the covers off my own father's misbehavior after so many people thought he was such a good person. ... But so many people are also telling me I did the right thing," she told The Associated Press outside her mother's home in the Gulf Coast town of Portland, near Corpus Christi.
"He's supposed to be a judge who exercises fit judgment," she said."I cannot stress enough -- I cannot repeat myself enough, that he just needs help."
And she said the videoed attack was not a one-off. "It did happen regularly for a period of time," she told NBC's "Today" show on Thursday.
In the same interview, Hallie Adams blamed her ex-husband's bouts of violence on his "addiction," calling it a "family secret." She did not elaborate. Their 22-year marriage ended in 2007.
The judge did not return an AP reporter's call seeking comment early Thursday.
Police in Rockport, where the 51-year-old judge lives, opened an investigation Wednesday after receiving calls from several concerned citizens, Police Chief Tim Jayroe said.
William Adams has been receiving threatening phone calls and faxes at the courthouse since the video went online, Aransas County Sheriff Bill Mills said.
No one answered the door Wednesday at the judge's home, repeated calls to his office rang unanswered and his attorney, William Dudley, did not respond to phone messages seeking comment. A neighbor said she saw Adams and his girlfriend packing luggage, a briefcase and rifles into their truck.
Corpus Christi television station KZTV caught up with the judge while he was getting into his vehicle Wednesday, and he confirmed it was him in the video. But he said it "looks worse than it is" and that he doesn't expect to be disciplined.
"In my mind, I haven't done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing," Adams said. "And I did lose my temper, but I've since apologized."
When told of her father's comments, Hillary Adams said, "it's a shining perfect example of his personality and he believes he can do no wrong. ... He will cover up rather than admit to what he did and try to come clean."
She stressed that she did not post the video as revenge and does not want her father punished. Rather, she did it because she thinks it will force him to seek help, and because he has been harassing her and she thought posting the clip would make that stop.
"We need to reach out to victims and the abusers themselves to get people to realize what it actually is," she said. Hillary, who was 16 at the time, said she secretly videotaped the beating in her bedroom because she "knew something was about to happen." She says her parents were angry at her for using her computer to download pirated content over the Internet.
In the clip's opening seconds, William Adams is heard telling Hillary's mother, "Go get the belt. The big one. I'm going to spank her now." With belt in hand, he turns off the light and tries forcing his daughter to bend over the bed to be beaten, but she refuses.
"Lay down or I'll spank you in your (expletive) face," Adams screams while he lashes her with sweeping blows across the legs, ignoring her wails and pleas for him to stop.
A few minutes into the video, Hillary's mother barks at her to "turn over like a 16-year-old and take it! Like a grown woman!" For about a minute, the ordeal appears to have ended after both parents leave the room and shut the door. But the judge then storms back into the room and the beating resumes.
Hallie Adams said she was "completely brainwashed and controlled" by her ex-husband.
"I did every single thing that he did," she told NBC. Hillary Adams said she is not angry at her mother.
Child advocates roundly condemned the beating as abuse. But investigators may decide that the judge's actions, while shocking, weren't criminal.
The lines between what's deemed child abuse and what's considered an acceptable level of discipline differ across the country and among various social groups, though the use of objects such as belts and sticks is usually seen as beyond any normal physical punishment, said David Finkelhor, a University of New Hampshire sociology professor who heads the school's Crimes against Children Research Center.
Adams, Aransas County's top judge, was elected in 2001 and has dealt with at least 349 family law cases in the past year alone, nearly 50 of which involved state caseworkers seeking determine whether parents were fit to raise their children.
Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the state Department of Family and Protective Services, said in an email that the agency is aware of the video and "will take the appropriate steps in this matter." He said the agency would have no further comment.
Source http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/texas-judge-caught-on-video-beating-daughter-needs-help/
Judge orders Kentucky to release records on child-abuse deaths
Written by Deborah Yetter
For the second time in 18 months, a Franklin Circuit Court judge has ordered the state to release records pertaining to child-abuse deaths and serious injuries, finding that there is “no legal basis” for withholding them.
“The court must conclude that the (Cabinet for Health and Family Services) is so immersed in the culture of secrecy regarding these issues that it is institutionally incapable of recognizing and implementing the clear requirement of the law,” Judge Phillip Shepherd said in his ruling, issued Thursday.
The decision comes after a lengthy court fight by The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader to obtain the records — and more than a year after Shepherd first ruled that the cabinet must disclose the material.
After that decision, the cabinet released some information about the death of a Wayne County toddler who drank drain cleaner at an alleged methamphetamine laboratory. But the cabinet refused to provide the newspapers with information about other child-abuse deaths.
A 2009 Courier-Journal investigation found that nearly 270 Kentucky children had died of abuse or neglect during the past decade — more than half in cases in which state officials knew of or suspected problems.
Thursday’s ruling is a major open-records victory for the newspapers and the public because it forces the cabinet to disclose details of how well the state does its job of protecting children from severe abuse, said Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer for The Courier-Journal.
“It’s about time the cabinet recognizes that it is not above the law,” Fleischaker said. “It has to comply with the mandate of state and federal law. This is not a difficult issue.”
Cabinet officials released a brief statement Thursday saying that they are reviewing the ruling. They gave no indication when they would release the records.
Fleischaker said the cabinet could appeal but added that he doubts it would succeed because Shepherd found for the newspapers in the virtually identical case last year. The cabinet did not appeal that ruling, making the decision final.
Fleischaker called on Gov. Steve Beshear to direct officials at the cabinet to comply with the court’s ruling.
“We now have a judge talking about the inability of the cabinet to understand its legal obligations,” Flesichaker said. “Maybe the governor needs to step in. He probably should have stepped in before this.”
Beshear spokeswoman Kerri Richardson didn’t respond to a question about whether Beshear will get involved. She said in a statement only that the cabinet is reviewing the decision.
Terry Brooks, executive director of Kentucky Youth Advocates, said Thursday’s ruling has important ramifications.
“It’s not just a win for the press,” Brooks said. “It’s a win for kids and for citizens who are taking a look at this issue.”
In his opinion, Shepherd had harsh words for cabinet officials who have consistently fought releasing material the newpapers sought after several highly publicized child abuse or neglect deaths, including the 2009 case of the Wayne County toddler.
His order said the cabinet “misinterpreted” state law and “continues to flatly ignore” provisions that require it to disclose the records.
“The release of these records will help to keep the cabinet accountable to prevent future tragedies and to answer to taxpayers who fund the cabinet,” it said.
State law — conforming to federal law — says such records may be “publicly disclosed” in cases in which a child was killed or severely injured from abuse or neglect if the cabinet had involvement with the family. But in recent years, cabinet officials have refused to release such material, citing the need for confidentiality.
Shepherd’s order noted the “exact issues” in the current case were already addressed in the initial lawsuit filed by the newpapers in 2009.
In that case, Shepherd ruled in May 2010 that the cabinet must release records related to the death of Kayden Daniels, the 20-month-old Wayne County boy who died at the home of his teenage parents, the site of the alleged meth lab. Both the child and his mother, then 14, had been under supervision of the cabinet before the death.
Records sought by the newspapers included a “fatality report” that the cabinet is required by law to conduct, examining the circumstances of the child’s death and actions of cabinet officials involved with the family. After Shepherd ordered the cabinet to release the report, agency officials acknowledged they had never conducted the review or produced such a report.
Shepherd ordered the release of other cabinet records in the case, such as documents relatging to state contacts with the family, the cabinet disclosed.
But it refused subsequent requests for information about other child-abuse deaths. That prompted the newspapers to file a second lawsuit in January, asking Shepherd to order the cabinet to comply with his previous order.
Shepherd, in Thursday’s ruling, also struck down “emergency regulations” that cabinet officials enacted in January seeking to sharply restrict the information it must release about child deaths and injuries. Shepherd’s order found no basis in state law for the regulations.
Because the newspapers had requested records related to child deaths for the past several years, such records are likely to be voluminous and could impose a “substantial administrative burden on the cabinet,” Shepherd’s order said.
For that reason, Shepherd ordered the cabinet to meet with the newspapers within the next 10 days to try to reach an agreement on the “orderly and timely production of the records.”
If the parties can’t agree, Shepherd’s order said he will hold a hearing on the matter and spell out the “time, place and manner of production.”
Shepherd also reserved a ruling on the newspapers’ request for attorneys fees until the other issues are resolved.
He already has awarded the newspapers $20,700 in legal costs from the first round of litigation. The cabinet has appealed that order.
Fleischaker called on Gov. Steve Beshear to direct officials at the cabinet to comply with the court’s ruling.
“We now have a judge talking about the inability of the cabinet to understand its legal obligations,” Flesichaker said. “Maybe the governor needs to step in. He probably should have stepped in before this.”
Beshear spokeswoman Kerri Richardson didn’t respond to a question about whether Beshear will get involved. She said in a statement only that the cabinet is reviewing the decision.
Terry Brooks, executive director of Kentucky Youth Advocates, said Thursday’s ruling has important ramifications.
“It’s not just a win for the press,” Brooks said. “It’s a win for kids and for citizens who are taking a look at this issue.”
In his opinion, Shepherd had harsh words for cabinet officials who have consistently fought releasing material the newpapers sought after several highly publicized child abuse or neglect deaths, including the 2009 case of the Wayne County toddler.
His order said the cabinet “misinterpreted” state law and “continues to flatly ignore” provisions that require it to disclose the records.
“The release of these records will help to keep the cabinet accountable to prevent future tragedies and to answer to taxpayers who fund the cabinet,” it said.
State law — conforming to federal law — says such records may be “publicly disclosed” in cases in which a child was killed or severely injured from abuse or neglect if the cabinet had involvement with the family. But in recent years, cabinet officials have refused to release such material, citing the need for confidentiality.
Shepherd’s order noted the “exact issues” in the current case were already addressed in the initial lawsuit filed by the newpapers in 2009.
In that case, Shepherd ruled in May 2010 that the cabinet must release records related to the death of Kayden Daniels, the 20-month-old Wayne County boy who died at the home of his teenage parents, the site of the alleged meth lab. Both the child and his mother, then 14, had been under supervision of the cabinet before the death.
Records sought by the newspapers included a “fatality report” that the cabinet is required by law to conduct, examining the circumstances of the child’s death and actions of cabinet officials involved with the family. After Shepherd ordered the cabinet to release the report, agency officials acknowledged they had never conducted the review or produced such a report.
Shepherd ordered the release of other cabinet records in the case, such as documents relatging to state contacts with the family, the cabinet disclosed.
But it refused subsequent requests for information about other child-abuse deaths. That prompted the newspapers to file a second lawsuit in January, asking Shepherd to order the cabinet to comply with his previous order.
Shepherd, in Thursday’s ruling, also struck down “emergency regulations” that cabinet officials enacted in January seeking to sharply restrict the information it must release about child deaths and injuries. Shepherd’s order found no basis in state law for the regulations.
Because the newspapers had requested records related to child deaths for the past several years, such records are likely to be voluminous and could impose a “substantial administrative burden on the cabinet,” Shepherd’s order said.
For that reason, Shepherd ordered the cabinet to meet with the newspapers within the next 10 days to try to reach an agreement on the “orderly and timely production of the records.”
If the parties can’t agree, Shepherd’s order said he will hold a hearing on the matter and spell out the “time, place and manner of production.”
Shepherd also reserved a ruling on the newspapers’ request for attorneys fees until the other issues are resolved.
He already has awarded the newspapers $20,700 in legal costs from the first round of litigation. The cabinet has appealed that order.
Source http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111103/NEWS01/311030033/Judge-orders-Kentucky-release-records-child-abuse-deaths?odyssey=nav%7Chead
For the second time in 18 months, a Franklin Circuit Court judge has ordered the state to release records pertaining to child-abuse deaths and serious injuries, finding that there is “no legal basis” for withholding them.
“The court must conclude that the (Cabinet for Health and Family Services) is so immersed in the culture of secrecy regarding these issues that it is institutionally incapable of recognizing and implementing the clear requirement of the law,” Judge Phillip Shepherd said in his ruling, issued Thursday.
The decision comes after a lengthy court fight by The Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader to obtain the records — and more than a year after Shepherd first ruled that the cabinet must disclose the material.
After that decision, the cabinet released some information about the death of a Wayne County toddler who drank drain cleaner at an alleged methamphetamine laboratory. But the cabinet refused to provide the newspapers with information about other child-abuse deaths.
A 2009 Courier-Journal investigation found that nearly 270 Kentucky children had died of abuse or neglect during the past decade — more than half in cases in which state officials knew of or suspected problems.
Thursday’s ruling is a major open-records victory for the newspapers and the public because it forces the cabinet to disclose details of how well the state does its job of protecting children from severe abuse, said Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer for The Courier-Journal.
“It’s about time the cabinet recognizes that it is not above the law,” Fleischaker said. “It has to comply with the mandate of state and federal law. This is not a difficult issue.”
Cabinet officials released a brief statement Thursday saying that they are reviewing the ruling. They gave no indication when they would release the records.
Fleischaker said the cabinet could appeal but added that he doubts it would succeed because Shepherd found for the newspapers in the virtually identical case last year. The cabinet did not appeal that ruling, making the decision final.
Fleischaker called on Gov. Steve Beshear to direct officials at the cabinet to comply with the court’s ruling.
“We now have a judge talking about the inability of the cabinet to understand its legal obligations,” Flesichaker said. “Maybe the governor needs to step in. He probably should have stepped in before this.”
Beshear spokeswoman Kerri Richardson didn’t respond to a question about whether Beshear will get involved. She said in a statement only that the cabinet is reviewing the decision.
Terry Brooks, executive director of Kentucky Youth Advocates, said Thursday’s ruling has important ramifications.
“It’s not just a win for the press,” Brooks said. “It’s a win for kids and for citizens who are taking a look at this issue.”
In his opinion, Shepherd had harsh words for cabinet officials who have consistently fought releasing material the newpapers sought after several highly publicized child abuse or neglect deaths, including the 2009 case of the Wayne County toddler.
His order said the cabinet “misinterpreted” state law and “continues to flatly ignore” provisions that require it to disclose the records.
“The release of these records will help to keep the cabinet accountable to prevent future tragedies and to answer to taxpayers who fund the cabinet,” it said.
State law — conforming to federal law — says such records may be “publicly disclosed” in cases in which a child was killed or severely injured from abuse or neglect if the cabinet had involvement with the family. But in recent years, cabinet officials have refused to release such material, citing the need for confidentiality.
Shepherd’s order noted the “exact issues” in the current case were already addressed in the initial lawsuit filed by the newpapers in 2009.
In that case, Shepherd ruled in May 2010 that the cabinet must release records related to the death of Kayden Daniels, the 20-month-old Wayne County boy who died at the home of his teenage parents, the site of the alleged meth lab. Both the child and his mother, then 14, had been under supervision of the cabinet before the death.
Records sought by the newspapers included a “fatality report” that the cabinet is required by law to conduct, examining the circumstances of the child’s death and actions of cabinet officials involved with the family. After Shepherd ordered the cabinet to release the report, agency officials acknowledged they had never conducted the review or produced such a report.
Shepherd ordered the release of other cabinet records in the case, such as documents relatging to state contacts with the family, the cabinet disclosed.
But it refused subsequent requests for information about other child-abuse deaths. That prompted the newspapers to file a second lawsuit in January, asking Shepherd to order the cabinet to comply with his previous order.
Shepherd, in Thursday’s ruling, also struck down “emergency regulations” that cabinet officials enacted in January seeking to sharply restrict the information it must release about child deaths and injuries. Shepherd’s order found no basis in state law for the regulations.
Because the newspapers had requested records related to child deaths for the past several years, such records are likely to be voluminous and could impose a “substantial administrative burden on the cabinet,” Shepherd’s order said.
For that reason, Shepherd ordered the cabinet to meet with the newspapers within the next 10 days to try to reach an agreement on the “orderly and timely production of the records.”
If the parties can’t agree, Shepherd’s order said he will hold a hearing on the matter and spell out the “time, place and manner of production.”
Shepherd also reserved a ruling on the newspapers’ request for attorneys fees until the other issues are resolved.
He already has awarded the newspapers $20,700 in legal costs from the first round of litigation. The cabinet has appealed that order.
Fleischaker called on Gov. Steve Beshear to direct officials at the cabinet to comply with the court’s ruling.
“We now have a judge talking about the inability of the cabinet to understand its legal obligations,” Flesichaker said. “Maybe the governor needs to step in. He probably should have stepped in before this.”
Beshear spokeswoman Kerri Richardson didn’t respond to a question about whether Beshear will get involved. She said in a statement only that the cabinet is reviewing the decision.
Terry Brooks, executive director of Kentucky Youth Advocates, said Thursday’s ruling has important ramifications.
“It’s not just a win for the press,” Brooks said. “It’s a win for kids and for citizens who are taking a look at this issue.”
In his opinion, Shepherd had harsh words for cabinet officials who have consistently fought releasing material the newpapers sought after several highly publicized child abuse or neglect deaths, including the 2009 case of the Wayne County toddler.
His order said the cabinet “misinterpreted” state law and “continues to flatly ignore” provisions that require it to disclose the records.
“The release of these records will help to keep the cabinet accountable to prevent future tragedies and to answer to taxpayers who fund the cabinet,” it said.
State law — conforming to federal law — says such records may be “publicly disclosed” in cases in which a child was killed or severely injured from abuse or neglect if the cabinet had involvement with the family. But in recent years, cabinet officials have refused to release such material, citing the need for confidentiality.
Shepherd’s order noted the “exact issues” in the current case were already addressed in the initial lawsuit filed by the newpapers in 2009.
In that case, Shepherd ruled in May 2010 that the cabinet must release records related to the death of Kayden Daniels, the 20-month-old Wayne County boy who died at the home of his teenage parents, the site of the alleged meth lab. Both the child and his mother, then 14, had been under supervision of the cabinet before the death.
Records sought by the newspapers included a “fatality report” that the cabinet is required by law to conduct, examining the circumstances of the child’s death and actions of cabinet officials involved with the family. After Shepherd ordered the cabinet to release the report, agency officials acknowledged they had never conducted the review or produced such a report.
Shepherd ordered the release of other cabinet records in the case, such as documents relatging to state contacts with the family, the cabinet disclosed.
But it refused subsequent requests for information about other child-abuse deaths. That prompted the newspapers to file a second lawsuit in January, asking Shepherd to order the cabinet to comply with his previous order.
Shepherd, in Thursday’s ruling, also struck down “emergency regulations” that cabinet officials enacted in January seeking to sharply restrict the information it must release about child deaths and injuries. Shepherd’s order found no basis in state law for the regulations.
Because the newspapers had requested records related to child deaths for the past several years, such records are likely to be voluminous and could impose a “substantial administrative burden on the cabinet,” Shepherd’s order said.
For that reason, Shepherd ordered the cabinet to meet with the newspapers within the next 10 days to try to reach an agreement on the “orderly and timely production of the records.”
If the parties can’t agree, Shepherd’s order said he will hold a hearing on the matter and spell out the “time, place and manner of production.”
Shepherd also reserved a ruling on the newspapers’ request for attorneys fees until the other issues are resolved.
He already has awarded the newspapers $20,700 in legal costs from the first round of litigation. The cabinet has appealed that order.
Source http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111103/NEWS01/311030033/Judge-orders-Kentucky-release-records-child-abuse-deaths?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Lawyer: Charges will be tough against judge in beating video
By Tracy Sabo, Ashley Hayes and Moni Basu, CNN
Dallas (CNN) -- A Texas judge whose daughter posted a graphic video of him beating her repeatedly has unleashed torrents of public anger but he may not ever face criminal prosecution.
Hillary Adams, now 23, uploaded a video of her father whipping her with a belt, cursing at her and berating her. She said Thursday that violence was a regular occurrence in her family home.
"It did happen regularly, for a period of time, and I could tell, because of the pattern, that things were escalating again," she said on NBC's "Today."
Her father, William Adams, a court-at-law judge in Aransas County, Texas, faces a police investigation and a judicial conduct probe.
Aransas County District Attorney Patrick Flanigan said authorities are looking at numerous factors, including the child's age and the statute of limitations.
The law is complex on which charges could be brought, he said, and which statutes may apply -- all speculation until the video is confirmed to be authentic.
"We're in a fact-finding situation now to determine what is true," he said. His office will look at how the law has changed in the past couple of years, as there could have been different laws in effect at the time.
However, a criminal defense lawyer said it was not likely that Adams could be prosecuted.
In an offense involving injury to a child, Texas law defines a child as being 14 years or less, said Houston lawyer Chris Tritico. Hillary Adams was 16 in the video.
He said the judge might have been charged with aggravated assault except in Texas, the statute of limitations is three years. The video was filmed in 2004.
"This young lady sat on this videotape for six years," Tritico said. "That's where the problem is."
But outrage over the beating erupted Thursday and in the court of public opinion, William Adams, who handles family-related and juvenile court issues, had already been convicted.
The state Commission of Judicial Conduct was inundated with calls, e-mails and faxes, it said in an online statement announcing the start of a probe into the matter.
"We want to get to the bottom of it ... regardless of who the person is," Flanigan said.
Aransas County Attorney Richard Bianchi said his office was also overwhelmed with calls and e-mails, including some from overseas, since the video went viral on the Internet.
"Just a sad day. It's unfortunate for all the people in that video. It doesn't bode well for the image of our community or our judiciary or our legal community in Aransas County," Bianchi said.
Adams was temporarily relieved of his duties for the next two weeks, and a visiting judge will take over his caseload while the matter is being investigated, according to the office of Aransas County Administrative Judge Burt Mills.
Meanwhile, Hillary Adams appeared on "Today" with her mother, Hallie Adams. Although she participated in the videotaped beating, Hillary Adams said she has since left the marriage because of the abuse and has apologized.
"We're very close now," she said when asked if she was angry at her mother. "When I showed her the video, she started crying, hasn't stopped apologizing, and I forgive her because she knows everything that happened."
Asked how she could condone or participate in the incident, Hillary Adams acknowledged, "It's chilling," but said. "My answer to you and to the world is something that I've been hiding for a very long time. It's a family secret, and that's addiction" on her husband's part.
She did not elaborate, but said, "I lived in an environment of dysfunction and it steadily got worse." She said she left her husband when Hillary was 6 months old and "he shamed me into going back.
"I was completely brainwashed and controlled," Hallie Adams said. "I did every single thing he did."
Hillary Adams said on "Today" that she left her video camera on her dresser recording and covered its light with a scarf in order to capture the video.
The video is punctuated by cracks of the man's belt and the girl's screams and cries.
She waited seven years to release it because at the time it was shot, she was still a minor and living under her father's roof. She didn't know what might happen to herself, her mother or her younger sister, she said.
The 2004 beating occurred when her father was punishing her for using the Internet "to acquire music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time," Hillary Adams wrote on the Internet posting. She said she released the video after being harassed by her father.
"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," she said Thursday. "It wasn't any huge happening or anything." She said she told her father she had the video, "and he didn't seem to think anything of it, and basically dared me to post it."
The video posting said, "Judge William Adams is not fit to be anywhere near the law system if he can't even exercise fit judgment as a parent himself. Do not allow this man to ever be re-elected again. His 'judgment' is a giant farce. Signed, Hillary Adams, his daughter."
Receiving an outpouring of support after posting the video has been like a form of therapy, she told KRIS, which is based in Corpus Christi, Texas.
"People are believing us now, instead of calling us liars like they have in the past," she said.
In an interview with KZTV outside his Rockport, Texas, home Wednesday, Adams confirmed to a reporter that he was the man beating his daughter with a belt and a board on the video.
"She's mad because I've ordered her to bring the car back, in a nutshell, but yeah, that's me. I lost my temper," Adams told the station. "Her mother was there, she wasn't hurt ... it was a long time ago ... I really don't want to get into this right now because as you can see my life's been made very difficult over this child."
Adams continued: "In my mind I have not done anything wrong other than discipline my child when she was caught stealing. I did lose my temper, I've apologized. It looks worse than it is."
A phone number listed for William Adams appeared to be out of service Thursday, with calls not connecting.
Hillary Adams told KRIS that her father was "making light of the situation."
"I just can't believe he would say something like he doesn't think it's a big deal."
At one point in the 7 1/2-minute video, the man says to his near-hysterical daughter, "What happened to you, Hillary? Once you were an obedient, nice little girl. Now you lie, cheat and steal."
He yells at her, "You want to put some more computer games on? You want some more?"
"Are you happy?" he asks her. "Disobeying your parents? You don't deserve to f---ing be in this house."
He also berates the girl's mother for allowing a "f---ing computer" in the house.
The older woman also strikes the girl with a belt once, and near the end of the video instructs the girl not to "touch one other thing on the computer besides your schoolwork until you are given notice otherwise."
Hillary Adams "has had ataxic cerebral palsy from birth that led her to a passion for technology, which was strictly forbidden by her father's backwards views," according to the YouTube posting.
Adams told KRIS that the conduct is "not as bad as it looks on tape." The judge said he had contacted judicial review officials in Austin and "more will come out" in the investigation, KRIS reported.
Asked what he might mean, Hallie Adams said on "Today," "I think that the story that's going to come out ... in his mind is that he's projected his problem onto me. For the entire four years since I've left the marriage, I've been abused and harassed through texts, e-mail." She said she told William Adams in June that she would not speak to him again, and "he has threatened to file for modification and take my younger daughter away from me."
Asked whether she wants her father to lose his job, Hillary Adams said on "Today," "I think wishing anybody to lose their job is not a really good thing to do," but "his being fit for the job, that's something I really can't say that he is."
She said she believes her father has been punished enough by the video being made public, "and I just think he really needs help and rehabilitation. We need to get him counseling or something."
She said she regretted that it was her own father "but at the same time so many people are telling me I did the right thing."
One court employee called Adams a good judge and told CNN affliate KTRK that there were always two sides to every story.
Whether Adams will face consequences for beating his daughter remains to be seen. But he will have to face the public three years from now, when he is up for re-election.
This article is based on reporting by Tracy Sabo in Dallas and Dave Alsup, Ashley Hayes and Moni Basu in Atlanta. CNN's Carma Hassan and Michael Martinez contributed to this report.
Source http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/justice/texas-video-beating/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Dallas (CNN) -- A Texas judge whose daughter posted a graphic video of him beating her repeatedly has unleashed torrents of public anger but he may not ever face criminal prosecution.
Hillary Adams, now 23, uploaded a video of her father whipping her with a belt, cursing at her and berating her. She said Thursday that violence was a regular occurrence in her family home.
"It did happen regularly, for a period of time, and I could tell, because of the pattern, that things were escalating again," she said on NBC's "Today."
Her father, William Adams, a court-at-law judge in Aransas County, Texas, faces a police investigation and a judicial conduct probe.
Aransas County District Attorney Patrick Flanigan said authorities are looking at numerous factors, including the child's age and the statute of limitations.
The law is complex on which charges could be brought, he said, and which statutes may apply -- all speculation until the video is confirmed to be authentic.
"We're in a fact-finding situation now to determine what is true," he said. His office will look at how the law has changed in the past couple of years, as there could have been different laws in effect at the time.
However, a criminal defense lawyer said it was not likely that Adams could be prosecuted.
In an offense involving injury to a child, Texas law defines a child as being 14 years or less, said Houston lawyer Chris Tritico. Hillary Adams was 16 in the video.
He said the judge might have been charged with aggravated assault except in Texas, the statute of limitations is three years. The video was filmed in 2004.
"This young lady sat on this videotape for six years," Tritico said. "That's where the problem is."
But outrage over the beating erupted Thursday and in the court of public opinion, William Adams, who handles family-related and juvenile court issues, had already been convicted.
The state Commission of Judicial Conduct was inundated with calls, e-mails and faxes, it said in an online statement announcing the start of a probe into the matter.
"We want to get to the bottom of it ... regardless of who the person is," Flanigan said.
Aransas County Attorney Richard Bianchi said his office was also overwhelmed with calls and e-mails, including some from overseas, since the video went viral on the Internet.
"Just a sad day. It's unfortunate for all the people in that video. It doesn't bode well for the image of our community or our judiciary or our legal community in Aransas County," Bianchi said.
Adams was temporarily relieved of his duties for the next two weeks, and a visiting judge will take over his caseload while the matter is being investigated, according to the office of Aransas County Administrative Judge Burt Mills.
Meanwhile, Hillary Adams appeared on "Today" with her mother, Hallie Adams. Although she participated in the videotaped beating, Hillary Adams said she has since left the marriage because of the abuse and has apologized.
"We're very close now," she said when asked if she was angry at her mother. "When I showed her the video, she started crying, hasn't stopped apologizing, and I forgive her because she knows everything that happened."
Asked how she could condone or participate in the incident, Hillary Adams acknowledged, "It's chilling," but said. "My answer to you and to the world is something that I've been hiding for a very long time. It's a family secret, and that's addiction" on her husband's part.
She did not elaborate, but said, "I lived in an environment of dysfunction and it steadily got worse." She said she left her husband when Hillary was 6 months old and "he shamed me into going back.
"I was completely brainwashed and controlled," Hallie Adams said. "I did every single thing he did."
Hillary Adams said on "Today" that she left her video camera on her dresser recording and covered its light with a scarf in order to capture the video.
The video is punctuated by cracks of the man's belt and the girl's screams and cries.
She waited seven years to release it because at the time it was shot, she was still a minor and living under her father's roof. She didn't know what might happen to herself, her mother or her younger sister, she said.
The 2004 beating occurred when her father was punishing her for using the Internet "to acquire music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time," Hillary Adams wrote on the Internet posting. She said she released the video after being harassed by her father.
"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," she said Thursday. "It wasn't any huge happening or anything." She said she told her father she had the video, "and he didn't seem to think anything of it, and basically dared me to post it."
The video posting said, "Judge William Adams is not fit to be anywhere near the law system if he can't even exercise fit judgment as a parent himself. Do not allow this man to ever be re-elected again. His 'judgment' is a giant farce. Signed, Hillary Adams, his daughter."
Receiving an outpouring of support after posting the video has been like a form of therapy, she told KRIS, which is based in Corpus Christi, Texas.
"People are believing us now, instead of calling us liars like they have in the past," she said.
In an interview with KZTV outside his Rockport, Texas, home Wednesday, Adams confirmed to a reporter that he was the man beating his daughter with a belt and a board on the video.
"She's mad because I've ordered her to bring the car back, in a nutshell, but yeah, that's me. I lost my temper," Adams told the station. "Her mother was there, she wasn't hurt ... it was a long time ago ... I really don't want to get into this right now because as you can see my life's been made very difficult over this child."
Adams continued: "In my mind I have not done anything wrong other than discipline my child when she was caught stealing. I did lose my temper, I've apologized. It looks worse than it is."
A phone number listed for William Adams appeared to be out of service Thursday, with calls not connecting.
Hillary Adams told KRIS that her father was "making light of the situation."
"I just can't believe he would say something like he doesn't think it's a big deal."
At one point in the 7 1/2-minute video, the man says to his near-hysterical daughter, "What happened to you, Hillary? Once you were an obedient, nice little girl. Now you lie, cheat and steal."
He yells at her, "You want to put some more computer games on? You want some more?"
"Are you happy?" he asks her. "Disobeying your parents? You don't deserve to f---ing be in this house."
He also berates the girl's mother for allowing a "f---ing computer" in the house.
The older woman also strikes the girl with a belt once, and near the end of the video instructs the girl not to "touch one other thing on the computer besides your schoolwork until you are given notice otherwise."
Hillary Adams "has had ataxic cerebral palsy from birth that led her to a passion for technology, which was strictly forbidden by her father's backwards views," according to the YouTube posting.
Adams told KRIS that the conduct is "not as bad as it looks on tape." The judge said he had contacted judicial review officials in Austin and "more will come out" in the investigation, KRIS reported.
Asked what he might mean, Hallie Adams said on "Today," "I think that the story that's going to come out ... in his mind is that he's projected his problem onto me. For the entire four years since I've left the marriage, I've been abused and harassed through texts, e-mail." She said she told William Adams in June that she would not speak to him again, and "he has threatened to file for modification and take my younger daughter away from me."
Asked whether she wants her father to lose his job, Hillary Adams said on "Today," "I think wishing anybody to lose their job is not a really good thing to do," but "his being fit for the job, that's something I really can't say that he is."
She said she believes her father has been punished enough by the video being made public, "and I just think he really needs help and rehabilitation. We need to get him counseling or something."
She said she regretted that it was her own father "but at the same time so many people are telling me I did the right thing."
One court employee called Adams a good judge and told CNN affliate KTRK that there were always two sides to every story.
Whether Adams will face consequences for beating his daughter remains to be seen. But he will have to face the public three years from now, when he is up for re-election.
This article is based on reporting by Tracy Sabo in Dallas and Dave Alsup, Ashley Hayes and Moni Basu in Atlanta. CNN's Carma Hassan and Michael Martinez contributed to this report.
Source http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/justice/texas-video-beating/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Texas judge confirms video of him beating daughter, says 'I lost my temper'
Blog authors note:
Here is a good example of the sadistic people who run family courts and make judgements against parents who truly love their children and which many are in front of these sadists due to false allegations.
-----
By By Tracy Sabo and Ashley Hayes, CNN
Dallas (CNN) -- A Texas judge faces a police investigation and judicial probe after a video showing him beating his then-16-year-old disabled daughter was posted on the Internet.
The graphic video drew international outrage after it was posted by a woman who said she was the victim of the beating seven years ago and that her parents -- including her father, Aransas County, Texas, Court-At-Law Judge William Adams -- were the ones seen beating and cursing at her in the video.
On Wednesday afternoon, Judge Adams was temporarily relieved of his duties for the next two weeks, and a visiting judge will take over his caseload while the matter is being investigated, according to the office of Aransas County Administrative Judge Burt Mills.
No court dates were scheduled this week, Mills' office said.
In an interview with KZTV outside his Rockport, Texas, home Wednesday, Adams confirmed to a reporter that he was the man beating his daughter with a belt and a board on the video, taped in 2004.
"She's mad because I've ordered her to bring the car back, in a nutshell, but yeah, that's me. I lost my temper," Adams told the TV station. "Her mother was there, she wasn't hurt ... it was a long time ago ... I really don't want to get into this right now because as you can see my life's been made very difficult over this child."
Adams continued: "In my mind I have not done anything wrong other than discipline my child when she was caught stealing. I did lose my temper, I've apologized. It looks worse than it is."
Speaking via phone to Texas television station KRIS, a woman who identified herself as Hillary Adams, the daughter in the video, said she posted the video, and criticized her father for "making light of the situation."
"I just can't believe he would say something like, he doesn't think it's a big deal," she said.
She told KRIS she set up the camera to record the incident seven years ago, but waited for "the right time" to release the video.
"Waiting this long to publish it has enabled me to look at it with hindsight and not be so caught up in the passion of the moment," Hillary Adams said. "I think we do, my mother and I, we do need to try to move on past the anger and just concentrate on getting counseling and help."
Receiving an outpouring of support after posting the video has been like a form of therapy, she told KRIS, which is based in Corpus Christi, Texas.
"People are believing us now, instead of calling us liars like they have in the past," she said.
Aransas County Attorney Richard Bianchi said his office has been overwhelmed with calls and e-mails, including some from overseas, since the video went viral on the Internet.
"Just a sad day. It's unfortunate for all the people in that video. It doesn't bode well for the image of our community or our judiciary or our legal community in Aransas County," Bianchi said.
When asked if Judge Adams could continue to work under the media attention and while the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates, Bianchi replied: "That depends on his state of mind. He'll have to look himself in the mirror and ask if he can conduct himself fairly and make good decisions."
Judge Adams is up for re-election in three years, Judge Mills told CNN. He was elected to a four-year term last year, said Aransas County Clerk Peggy Friebele.
Asked if there were any similar or past incidents in the longtime judge's personnel record, Bianchi stated: "Nothing involving the county attorney's office... He, like all of us, has his personal life struggles... he had a divorce." Adams was the county judge, an administrative position, before being elected as a county court-at-law judge about 10 years ago, Bianchi said.
A person identifying herself as Hillary Adams said in posting the video to the sharing site Reddit she decided to post it after receiving a "barrage of harassment" over the phone from her father.
The video, apparently shot on a webcam, was also posted to YouTube. In that posting, the person identifying herself as Hillary Adams said the beating occurred in 2004, when her father was punishing her for using the Internet "to acquire music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time."
The video posting said, "Judge William Adams is not fit to be anywhere near the law system if he can't even exercise fit judgment as a parent himself. Do not allow this man to ever be re-elected again. His 'judgment' is a giant farce. Signed, Hillary Adams, his daughter."
CNN tried repeatedly on Wednesday to reach William Adams at his Rockport, Texas, office, but received a constant busy signal.
But Adams told Texas television station KRIS that the conduct is "not as bad as it looks on tape." The judge said he had contacted judicial review officials in Austin and "more will come out" in the investigation, KRIS reported
Meanwhile, Aransas County Administrative Judge Mills told CNN that he spoke with Adams on Wednesday morning.
"I talked to him this morning and he was pretty upset," Mills said. He added that Adams was due to be off from work Wednesday for personal reasons.
Judge Adam's ex-wife, Hallie Adams, posted a comment on Facebook about the video, according to KRIS.
The posting attributed to Hallie Adams states: "I am praying for my daughters and me and my family to heal in all ways from emotional and physical abuse, for the current and continuing abuse of my children and me that has been ongoing to end -- starting now -- for my daughters to both finally be able to go to counseling both individually and as a family group with their dad's approval, encouragement, involvement and support, for him to finally make amends to all of us, talk openly with us, and take the first steps to letting our broken family heal."
A page called "Don't Re-Elect Judge William Adams" also sprang up on Facebook, attracting more than 13,000 "likes" by Wednesday night. Messages were posted by users in countries including Australia, the Netherlands and Guatemala, among others, and a Spanish-language version of the video was posted on YouTube.
"This man doesn't deserve power," said a posting on the Facebook page. "He doesn't know how to use it."
A person identifying herself as Hillary Adams, on a Twitter account using the same username as the posting on Reddit, tweeted to CNN, "I'm not sure how much I should say, except that above all we need to help my father instead of condemning him."
In another tweet, the person said, "I'm feeling some regret for publishing the video because to ruin my own father is heavy indeed. But I really want him to seek help."
The video was brought to authorities' attention about 9 p.m. Tuesday, Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe told CNN, and authorities are investigating to determine its authenticity.
Aransas County District Attorney Patrick Flanigan told CNN authorities are looking at numerous factors, including the child's age and the statute of limitations.
The law is complex on which charges could be brought, he said, and which statutes may apply -- which is all speculation until the video is confirmed to be authentic.
"We're in a fact-finding situation now to determine what is true," he said, and the district attorney's office will get updates from the police department about the investigation.
In addition, he said, his office will look at how the law has changed in the past couple of years, as there could have been different laws in effect at the time.
The possibility of an alleged abuser holding a position of authority such as a judge "doesn't matter and shouldn't matter" in the investigation, District Attorney Flanigan said, adding, "it will be a normal review."
As a judge, Adams handles misdemeanor cases, including family-related and juvenile court issues, Flanigan said. Those cases rarely move to the criminal side or cross to his purview, he said.
"We want to get to the bottom of it ... regardless of who the person is," he said.
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct declined comment on the matter Wednesday, but it said it was aware of the situation. A woman answering the phone said the commission has been "overwhelmed."
Hillary Adams "has had ataxic cerebral palsy from birth that led her to a passion for technology, which was strictly forbidden by her father's backwards views," according to the posting on the YouTube video. "The judge's wife was emotionally abused herself and was severely manipulated into assisting the beating and should not be blamed for any content in this video."
Attempts by CNN to contact Hillary Adams' mother were not immediately successful Wednesday.
The video is punctuated by cracks of the man's belt and the girl's screams and cries.
At one point, the man says to his near-hysterical daughter, "What happened to you, Hillary? Once you were an obedient, nice little girl. Now you lie, cheat and steal."
At another point in the 7 1/2-minute video, he yells at her, "You want to put some more computer games on? You want some more?"
"Are you happy?" he asks her. "Disobeying your parents? You don't deserve to f---ing be in this house."
He also berates the older woman, who identifies herself as the girl's mother, for allowing a "f---ing computer" in the house.
The older woman also strikes the girl with a belt once, and near the end of the video instructs the girl not to "touch one other thing on the computer besides your schoolwork until you are given notice otherwise."
The girl was apparently 16 at the time the video is taken, as the older woman at one point instructs her to "turn over like a 16-year-old and take it."
Judge Adams' work schedule will be reassessed as new information is revealed in the investigation, Mills' office said.
Police and the district attorney are taking the investigation seriously, Jayroe, the police chief, said. Investigators have not yet spoken to Hillary Adams or her family, he said, and have not tried to contact William Adams.
"We would want to talk to her," he said of Hillary Adams.
Jayroe said his department has asked the Texas Department of Public Safety for assistance with an investigator. "It's the first time in 22 years we've asked for assistance," he said.
Source http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/justice/texas-video-beating/?hpt=hp_t2
Here is a good example of the sadistic people who run family courts and make judgements against parents who truly love their children and which many are in front of these sadists due to false allegations.
-----
By By Tracy Sabo and Ashley Hayes, CNN
Dallas (CNN) -- A Texas judge faces a police investigation and judicial probe after a video showing him beating his then-16-year-old disabled daughter was posted on the Internet.
The graphic video drew international outrage after it was posted by a woman who said she was the victim of the beating seven years ago and that her parents -- including her father, Aransas County, Texas, Court-At-Law Judge William Adams -- were the ones seen beating and cursing at her in the video.
On Wednesday afternoon, Judge Adams was temporarily relieved of his duties for the next two weeks, and a visiting judge will take over his caseload while the matter is being investigated, according to the office of Aransas County Administrative Judge Burt Mills.
No court dates were scheduled this week, Mills' office said.
In an interview with KZTV outside his Rockport, Texas, home Wednesday, Adams confirmed to a reporter that he was the man beating his daughter with a belt and a board on the video, taped in 2004.
"She's mad because I've ordered her to bring the car back, in a nutshell, but yeah, that's me. I lost my temper," Adams told the TV station. "Her mother was there, she wasn't hurt ... it was a long time ago ... I really don't want to get into this right now because as you can see my life's been made very difficult over this child."
Adams continued: "In my mind I have not done anything wrong other than discipline my child when she was caught stealing. I did lose my temper, I've apologized. It looks worse than it is."
Speaking via phone to Texas television station KRIS, a woman who identified herself as Hillary Adams, the daughter in the video, said she posted the video, and criticized her father for "making light of the situation."
"I just can't believe he would say something like, he doesn't think it's a big deal," she said.
She told KRIS she set up the camera to record the incident seven years ago, but waited for "the right time" to release the video.
"Waiting this long to publish it has enabled me to look at it with hindsight and not be so caught up in the passion of the moment," Hillary Adams said. "I think we do, my mother and I, we do need to try to move on past the anger and just concentrate on getting counseling and help."
Receiving an outpouring of support after posting the video has been like a form of therapy, she told KRIS, which is based in Corpus Christi, Texas.
"People are believing us now, instead of calling us liars like they have in the past," she said.
Aransas County Attorney Richard Bianchi said his office has been overwhelmed with calls and e-mails, including some from overseas, since the video went viral on the Internet.
"Just a sad day. It's unfortunate for all the people in that video. It doesn't bode well for the image of our community or our judiciary or our legal community in Aransas County," Bianchi said.
When asked if Judge Adams could continue to work under the media attention and while the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates, Bianchi replied: "That depends on his state of mind. He'll have to look himself in the mirror and ask if he can conduct himself fairly and make good decisions."
Judge Adams is up for re-election in three years, Judge Mills told CNN. He was elected to a four-year term last year, said Aransas County Clerk Peggy Friebele.
Asked if there were any similar or past incidents in the longtime judge's personnel record, Bianchi stated: "Nothing involving the county attorney's office... He, like all of us, has his personal life struggles... he had a divorce." Adams was the county judge, an administrative position, before being elected as a county court-at-law judge about 10 years ago, Bianchi said.
A person identifying herself as Hillary Adams said in posting the video to the sharing site Reddit she decided to post it after receiving a "barrage of harassment" over the phone from her father.
The video, apparently shot on a webcam, was also posted to YouTube. In that posting, the person identifying herself as Hillary Adams said the beating occurred in 2004, when her father was punishing her for using the Internet "to acquire music and games that were unavailable for legal purchase at the time."
The video posting said, "Judge William Adams is not fit to be anywhere near the law system if he can't even exercise fit judgment as a parent himself. Do not allow this man to ever be re-elected again. His 'judgment' is a giant farce. Signed, Hillary Adams, his daughter."
CNN tried repeatedly on Wednesday to reach William Adams at his Rockport, Texas, office, but received a constant busy signal.
But Adams told Texas television station KRIS that the conduct is "not as bad as it looks on tape." The judge said he had contacted judicial review officials in Austin and "more will come out" in the investigation, KRIS reported
Meanwhile, Aransas County Administrative Judge Mills told CNN that he spoke with Adams on Wednesday morning.
"I talked to him this morning and he was pretty upset," Mills said. He added that Adams was due to be off from work Wednesday for personal reasons.
Judge Adam's ex-wife, Hallie Adams, posted a comment on Facebook about the video, according to KRIS.
The posting attributed to Hallie Adams states: "I am praying for my daughters and me and my family to heal in all ways from emotional and physical abuse, for the current and continuing abuse of my children and me that has been ongoing to end -- starting now -- for my daughters to both finally be able to go to counseling both individually and as a family group with their dad's approval, encouragement, involvement and support, for him to finally make amends to all of us, talk openly with us, and take the first steps to letting our broken family heal."
A page called "Don't Re-Elect Judge William Adams" also sprang up on Facebook, attracting more than 13,000 "likes" by Wednesday night. Messages were posted by users in countries including Australia, the Netherlands and Guatemala, among others, and a Spanish-language version of the video was posted on YouTube.
"This man doesn't deserve power," said a posting on the Facebook page. "He doesn't know how to use it."
A person identifying herself as Hillary Adams, on a Twitter account using the same username as the posting on Reddit, tweeted to CNN, "I'm not sure how much I should say, except that above all we need to help my father instead of condemning him."
In another tweet, the person said, "I'm feeling some regret for publishing the video because to ruin my own father is heavy indeed. But I really want him to seek help."
The video was brought to authorities' attention about 9 p.m. Tuesday, Rockport Police Chief Tim Jayroe told CNN, and authorities are investigating to determine its authenticity.
Aransas County District Attorney Patrick Flanigan told CNN authorities are looking at numerous factors, including the child's age and the statute of limitations.
The law is complex on which charges could be brought, he said, and which statutes may apply -- which is all speculation until the video is confirmed to be authentic.
"We're in a fact-finding situation now to determine what is true," he said, and the district attorney's office will get updates from the police department about the investigation.
In addition, he said, his office will look at how the law has changed in the past couple of years, as there could have been different laws in effect at the time.
The possibility of an alleged abuser holding a position of authority such as a judge "doesn't matter and shouldn't matter" in the investigation, District Attorney Flanigan said, adding, "it will be a normal review."
As a judge, Adams handles misdemeanor cases, including family-related and juvenile court issues, Flanigan said. Those cases rarely move to the criminal side or cross to his purview, he said.
"We want to get to the bottom of it ... regardless of who the person is," he said.
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct declined comment on the matter Wednesday, but it said it was aware of the situation. A woman answering the phone said the commission has been "overwhelmed."
Hillary Adams "has had ataxic cerebral palsy from birth that led her to a passion for technology, which was strictly forbidden by her father's backwards views," according to the posting on the YouTube video. "The judge's wife was emotionally abused herself and was severely manipulated into assisting the beating and should not be blamed for any content in this video."
Attempts by CNN to contact Hillary Adams' mother were not immediately successful Wednesday.
The video is punctuated by cracks of the man's belt and the girl's screams and cries.
At one point, the man says to his near-hysterical daughter, "What happened to you, Hillary? Once you were an obedient, nice little girl. Now you lie, cheat and steal."
At another point in the 7 1/2-minute video, he yells at her, "You want to put some more computer games on? You want some more?"
"Are you happy?" he asks her. "Disobeying your parents? You don't deserve to f---ing be in this house."
He also berates the older woman, who identifies herself as the girl's mother, for allowing a "f---ing computer" in the house.
The older woman also strikes the girl with a belt once, and near the end of the video instructs the girl not to "touch one other thing on the computer besides your schoolwork until you are given notice otherwise."
The girl was apparently 16 at the time the video is taken, as the older woman at one point instructs her to "turn over like a 16-year-old and take it."
Judge Adams' work schedule will be reassessed as new information is revealed in the investigation, Mills' office said.
Police and the district attorney are taking the investigation seriously, Jayroe, the police chief, said. Investigators have not yet spoken to Hillary Adams or her family, he said, and have not tried to contact William Adams.
"We would want to talk to her," he said of Hillary Adams.
Jayroe said his department has asked the Texas Department of Public Safety for assistance with an investigator. "It's the first time in 22 years we've asked for assistance," he said.
Source http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/justice/texas-video-beating/?hpt=hp_t2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)