NYLJ 06-06-2007
3. COUNTY’S ABUSE CLAIMS AGAINST PARENTS REJECTED
3. Sometimes the Good Guys win…even when their opposition is also the Good Guys. In these cases, it never really fits into such simplistic dimensions. “God does not write cheap melodramas with quick fixes” (to paraphrase Einstein beyond all recognition)—everything is complicated by pain and suffering and even victory is sad and the losers seem all the worse for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.
The parents who regained custody of their 6-yr-old daughter had been fighting for three years. The Saratoga County Dept. of Social Services successfully petitioned her removal to foster care when evidence began to, in their eyes, prove insurmountable that she was the victim of horrible abuse. It was in December of 2003 when her repeated hospital trips were reported to the social workers, the last resulting in a skeletal survey and CT scan showing fractures of ribs, skull, forearms and tibia, when they asked the Family Court judge to intervene. The Court declined the county’s request citing the obvious fact that the parents were doing all they could, conceding nothing, or at the very least, evidencing no suspicious behaviors, in their quest to find a solution to this mysterious malady.
In March 2004, when EMT’s said she’d coughed up a mucous plug, the county examiner, Dr. Suez, concluded that she had been intentionally smothered. The next day she was declared an abused child and ordered taken from her parents. The County didn’t ignore the other two children, still at home, either, subjecting the family to monitoring as well as unannounced visits.
The original doctor was soon joined by a second, Slather, who has at first been sympathetic to the parents, but later went into full war against them, even soliciting opinions of other physicians as additional ammunition, in both of the Doctor’s views it was a process of elimination: for Suez, there could be no other explanation because there was too much evidence of the standard issue; for Slather, it was a mounting crusade which blinded him to other possibilities. “Once they fell under the eye of SS workers, it was a no-win situation,” concluded the defense argument. “No matter what they did or didn’t do, it wasn’t the right thing. If they were at the hospital every day, they were with their child too much. If they missed a day, it was a bad thing.” Very much the same thing as when the police decide you are a “person of interest”. At that point, if you don’t get a lawyer, you are a fool.
What was missing in all this was any competent professional who knew about OI—Osteogenesis Imperfeda, a/k/a “brittle bone disease.” That it took an orthopedic surgeon and a pediatric rheumatologist to see the syndrome as the probable cause underscores the trauma in italics “In 10 to 15% of OI cases, neither collagen or genetic testing will indicate the presence of the condition.”
And, like the elusive syndrome itself, the court found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the other two children were neglected or abused in any way. But what the judge was most critical of was the two “experts” of social services. “Simply put, Suez’ lack of expertise with OI, deductive analysis (or lack of) and quest to divine a single solution to the complex host of maladies, coupled with Slather’s transition” (from parent’s advocate to Inspector Javert), “all but eviscerates the value of their medical testimony.”
What makes matters even worse is that the Saratoga County Attorney want to ride it again, flogging the dead horse up to the Court of Appeals.
Words cannot express…the wheel turns round again…
Showing posts with label Family Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Court. Show all posts
Friday, April 2, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
CONTEMPT APPLICATION SURVIVES PHOTOCOPYING SNAFU
NYLJ 6/5/07
4. CONTEMPT APPLICATION SURVIVES PHOTOCOPYING SNAFU
4. The Reader’s Digest section called Humor in Uniform was always a fond memory of childhood. There was a tacit guarantee of some form of received wisdom, of lessons culled from experience and distilled of all impurities by those who’d chosen a life in service to a higher cause than civilians. And, as one might suspect, responding to entrenched armed service bureaucracy frequently required a response that was, to put it mildly (as RD would), “salty”. This was how they would explain SNAFU: "SITUATION NORMAL: ALL FOULED UP." And if you think that's "fouled up", FUBAR was—even though not a neologism, as many had made it, coined by Vietnam vets—never mentioned. It is just not rational for anyone who has ever spent any time in or around soldiers or sailors to believe they would reserve such reserved speech for their objections; it don't make no sense.
This is only to preface how elisions of this sort my be used to gloss over indelicacies. Like the fact that such an august publication as the Journal chooses to put this in its headline shows how its constant usage has turned an acronym of sardonic contempt into a totally sanitized noun of its own. And, as with the astonishment concluding the previous paragraph, when it comes to the view from the high chair in the court, there are daily reviews of the absurd and profane which, occasionally, might employ common sense, when not overruled by precedent or statute.
In the matter of this Family Court contempt application, the petitioner here acknowledged receipt of the mailing. His quibble was that he couldn't read the warning section. And the judge can, as well, acknowledge that what the petitioner received was a piss-poor job of photocopying. This is when the Reasonable Person argument can be the best one; that this is no defense for ignoring it. There is something so inherently satisfying to make such a response to blatant statements like “This application was missing five letters from its statutorily-required warning, making it confusing and misleading” with a roundly sound, "SNAFU. So what?"
We may here acknowledge that the judge is entitled to one, long, profound sigh--and perhaps an admittedly theatrical rub of the temples. And no, he doesn't get to offer the above epithet. That the ruling can be summed up as something similar to 'Ok. So it wasn’t nice and clean and was probably a 10th generation Xerox of all-caps boilerplate. But if that doesn’t tell you it worked on generations one thru 9, you are deluding no one but yourself.'
So there you have what the petitioner might plead as a classic example of FUBAR...if the court allowed for even a Reader's Digest version of the facts.
4. CONTEMPT APPLICATION SURVIVES PHOTOCOPYING SNAFU
4. The Reader’s Digest section called Humor in Uniform was always a fond memory of childhood. There was a tacit guarantee of some form of received wisdom, of lessons culled from experience and distilled of all impurities by those who’d chosen a life in service to a higher cause than civilians. And, as one might suspect, responding to entrenched armed service bureaucracy frequently required a response that was, to put it mildly (as RD would), “salty”. This was how they would explain SNAFU: "SITUATION NORMAL: ALL FOULED UP." And if you think that's "fouled up", FUBAR was—even though not a neologism, as many had made it, coined by Vietnam vets—never mentioned. It is just not rational for anyone who has ever spent any time in or around soldiers or sailors to believe they would reserve such reserved speech for their objections; it don't make no sense.
This is only to preface how elisions of this sort my be used to gloss over indelicacies. Like the fact that such an august publication as the Journal chooses to put this in its headline shows how its constant usage has turned an acronym of sardonic contempt into a totally sanitized noun of its own. And, as with the astonishment concluding the previous paragraph, when it comes to the view from the high chair in the court, there are daily reviews of the absurd and profane which, occasionally, might employ common sense, when not overruled by precedent or statute.
In the matter of this Family Court contempt application, the petitioner here acknowledged receipt of the mailing. His quibble was that he couldn't read the warning section. And the judge can, as well, acknowledge that what the petitioner received was a piss-poor job of photocopying. This is when the Reasonable Person argument can be the best one; that this is no defense for ignoring it. There is something so inherently satisfying to make such a response to blatant statements like “This application was missing five letters from its statutorily-required warning, making it confusing and misleading” with a roundly sound, "SNAFU. So what?"
We may here acknowledge that the judge is entitled to one, long, profound sigh--and perhaps an admittedly theatrical rub of the temples. And no, he doesn't get to offer the above epithet. That the ruling can be summed up as something similar to 'Ok. So it wasn’t nice and clean and was probably a 10th generation Xerox of all-caps boilerplate. But if that doesn’t tell you it worked on generations one thru 9, you are deluding no one but yourself.'
So there you have what the petitioner might plead as a classic example of FUBAR...if the court allowed for even a Reader's Digest version of the facts.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
BUDGET DENIES CITY LEGAL AID NEW POSITIONS
NYLJ 5/2/07
2. BUDGET DENIES CITY LEGAL AID NEW POSITIONS
NYLJ 5/14/07
2. AGENCIES HIRED TO REPRESENT PARENTS ON ABUSE AND NEGLECT, sub: some cases shifted from 18-B lawyers in 3 boros
It was Herbert Hoover’s great misunderstanding that “volunteerism” would take over from Federal services in filling in the gaps for those who had lapsed into the Great Depression.
Today, Family Court is shifting representation of parents of neglected and abused children from appointed private lawyers to non-profit. And, yes, they all have powerful-sounding names and seem to cover all boroughs—the 175 lawyer group for Brooklyn, 31 lawyer group for the Bronx, and the 5 lawyer group for Manhattan. But you have to wonder: when child welfare authorities already have you behind the proverbial 8-ball, who you gonna call?
This could actually be seen as a breakthrough opportunity to do the work right, instead of relying on the Article 18-B provision of the County Law that requires judges to appoint lawyers. And anybody recognizes that there’s plenty of work to go around. Yet that doesn’t stop the current crop of 18-B atty’s from wondering if this isn’t the foot in the door to their ousting. When change is in the wind, you either tack into it or get capsized—that’s what a sailor would tell you…not a bloodhound. That’s what a scent will do for you; create suspicion and get you ready to give chase. It all depends on what way it grabs you.
'So, time to pack it in, crate it up, take the name off the door and give the plants to the secretarial pool. Family court just won’t be the same—it will be much less. There will be neglect and abuse cases that no one will touch—no lawyer or social worker will ever open that can of worms, let alone try a fishing expedition. But the silver lining?—sure! A cap to caseloads! Even better: because you can’t take on any more work, there isn’t going to be any more abuse or neglect, right? In Albany, of course, the Capital Defender’s Office has had their budget doubled—so isn’t that nice? All one needs to do is a have a family crisis recognized by the state, right?'
“I don’t think irony is going to help here.” The Legal Aid Supervisor leans against his doorframe, those half-specs making her look ever more like a cat eyeing a hole in the floorboard. "Yes," she confirms, "you were muttering again. I'll be good for you to go into private practice."
“Under Article 18-B, I get $75phr for felonies and $60phr for misdemeanors and family court.”
“Which means?”
“Which means, amongst other things, I get $15phr less to listen to children crying and perps lying than I do in traffic court, L&T or—“
“And you don’t have to think about Nixmary Brown or all the other babies who die because of budget cuts with a 147% increase in cases, do you?”
"Math was never my strong suit. And I look much better in pinstripes than courderoy."
"I wouldn't worry about the dress code if I were you," is her parthian shot over-the-shoulder in departure. "With your credentials, you'd be likelier to get them from the Yankees than a Fortune 500 outfit."
Shouting at the shot, "Hey, can I count on you for a letter of recommendation to Girardi?"
2. BUDGET DENIES CITY LEGAL AID NEW POSITIONS
NYLJ 5/14/07
2. AGENCIES HIRED TO REPRESENT PARENTS ON ABUSE AND NEGLECT, sub: some cases shifted from 18-B lawyers in 3 boros
It was Herbert Hoover’s great misunderstanding that “volunteerism” would take over from Federal services in filling in the gaps for those who had lapsed into the Great Depression.
Today, Family Court is shifting representation of parents of neglected and abused children from appointed private lawyers to non-profit. And, yes, they all have powerful-sounding names and seem to cover all boroughs—the 175 lawyer group for Brooklyn, 31 lawyer group for the Bronx, and the 5 lawyer group for Manhattan. But you have to wonder: when child welfare authorities already have you behind the proverbial 8-ball, who you gonna call?
This could actually be seen as a breakthrough opportunity to do the work right, instead of relying on the Article 18-B provision of the County Law that requires judges to appoint lawyers. And anybody recognizes that there’s plenty of work to go around. Yet that doesn’t stop the current crop of 18-B atty’s from wondering if this isn’t the foot in the door to their ousting. When change is in the wind, you either tack into it or get capsized—that’s what a sailor would tell you…not a bloodhound. That’s what a scent will do for you; create suspicion and get you ready to give chase. It all depends on what way it grabs you.
'So, time to pack it in, crate it up, take the name off the door and give the plants to the secretarial pool. Family court just won’t be the same—it will be much less. There will be neglect and abuse cases that no one will touch—no lawyer or social worker will ever open that can of worms, let alone try a fishing expedition. But the silver lining?—sure! A cap to caseloads! Even better: because you can’t take on any more work, there isn’t going to be any more abuse or neglect, right? In Albany, of course, the Capital Defender’s Office has had their budget doubled—so isn’t that nice? All one needs to do is a have a family crisis recognized by the state, right?'
“I don’t think irony is going to help here.” The Legal Aid Supervisor leans against his doorframe, those half-specs making her look ever more like a cat eyeing a hole in the floorboard. "Yes," she confirms, "you were muttering again. I'll be good for you to go into private practice."
“Under Article 18-B, I get $75phr for felonies and $60phr for misdemeanors and family court.”
“Which means?”
“Which means, amongst other things, I get $15phr less to listen to children crying and perps lying than I do in traffic court, L&T or—“
“And you don’t have to think about Nixmary Brown or all the other babies who die because of budget cuts with a 147% increase in cases, do you?”
"Math was never my strong suit. And I look much better in pinstripes than courderoy."
"I wouldn't worry about the dress code if I were you," is her parthian shot over-the-shoulder in departure. "With your credentials, you'd be likelier to get them from the Yankees than a Fortune 500 outfit."
Shouting at the shot, "Hey, can I count on you for a letter of recommendation to Girardi?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
