Family Court Exposed

Nothing government does is more important than protecting those least able to protect themselves. Children — particularly the depressingly-too-many Texas children abused at home — are among those at the top of that list.

It is crucial that appropriate state officials have the tools needed to investigate and intervene in such cases.

But there also is nothing much more important for government to do than keep its nose out of families and the sanctity of the home. The family, in all its modern forms, remains the key building block on which a society rises or falls.

We must respect the right of families and their right to run their homes as they see fit.

How then do we simultaneously protect children from at-home abuse and protect families from unreasonable intrusion by officials who suspect abuse?

There is no simple answer.

Texas lawmakers — in yet another late-in-the-session, cut-and-paste job that inserted a dead bill as an amendment to a live bill — voted last month to give state officials broader power to get court orders to go into a home and remove a child for questioning as part of an abuse investigation.

Backers of the measure, including some state judges involved in such cases, called it a fair balance. The provision establishes specific standards that Child Protective Services must meet to get a court order, sometimes without parents’ knowledge they are being investigated.

This is government business about as delicate as it gets. But as bill backers noted, it’s sometimes necessary.

“Just as a criminal court cannot give a suspected drug dealer a hearing about a warrant before the police search their house, a family court cannot give a suspected child abuser a hearing before CPS interviews their child,” said a recent op-ed article submitted by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, the Children’s Hospital Association of Texas, Texans Care for Children, the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Association for the Protection of Children.

The groups urged Gov. Rick Perry to sign the bill, which included leeway for a judge to opt to hear from parents prior to issuing an investigatory order.

Opponents urged a veto. The Home School Coalition, backed by organizations such as Texas Eagle Forum and other conservative groups, sent Perry a 21-page letter outlining their family-first views on the bill.

“Parental rights are a fundamental, constitutionally protected right of all citizens,” they accurately told Perry.

Last Friday, Perry vetoed the bill, saying it “goes too far” in granting investigators the authority to transport children from suspected abusive situations. Perry also cited “uncertainty” he said could “potentially infringe on the rights of parents and guardians.”

The governor told the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to develop “statewide procedures to follow when seeking court orders without compromising the rights of parents and families.”

Easier said than done. In vetoing what looked like a solution as balanced as can be, all Perry did was identify the problem.

His staff said Perry received 17,373 calls and letters opposing the bill and only 455 supporting it. The numbers are impressive, but we must have missed it when this was put up for popular vote.

We see this as a case in which a governor should have gone for right, not referendum. Bill sponsor Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, got it right when he said Perry “listened to bad advice, ignored sound, just policy and chose to veto a bill that would have helped protect the children of Texas from abuse and neglect.”

When it comes to balancing the protection of family sanctity and the protection of abused children, there is no perfect answer. But we believe Watson’s bill placed the burdensome responsibility for making those calls just where it belongs, with state judges – many of whom have expertise and long records in dealing with such matters.

Instead of calling for a study of how best to protect kids, the governor should have allowed this bill to become law.

Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) came to Cass County in 1995 through Family Court Judge Susan Dobrich of Dowagiac.

“She has been a very, very great advocate of our program since its inception,” Director James Ward told Dowagiac Rotary Club Thursday noon at Elks Lodge 889. The first volunteers were trained in 1997.

Despite being a small, rural county, at any given time there are 125 or more children in foster care who have been removed from their homes – often to other counties, but they remain wards of the Cassopolis court system.

Eighteen active volunteers advocate for 32 children. The “magic number” is “somewhere in the middle” of 32 and 125.

Youths placed in foster care “age out” at 18.

“We’re also looking for diversity in our next group of volunteers,” Ward said. “We need more men. We’ve got a lot of teen-age boys who would relate to a man who could help them and guide them. We need African Americans. And we need Native Americans.”

Contact him by e-mail at casscocasa@yahoo.com or by telephone at (269) 445-4431.

As for effectiveness, Ward says CASA research shows involvement of one of its volunteers with a child, “That child will spend less time in court and in foster care. There’s a better chance of finding a permanent home because the CASA volunteer has the time and skills to look out for that child. They also have access to more community services because they study them in the training itself.”

“If you’re looking for immediate rewards,” CASA would be the wrong place to volunteer, Ward cautions. “Each case takes about 18 months and they don’t’ always work out as well as we’d like them to. They don’t all end up in safe, permanent homes. If you’re a ‘my way or the highway’ guy, you might have trouble. You have to be strong because there’s a lot of emotional stress in this job. For the first three months I was the CASA director, I’d just drive through the community and shake my head at having known for the first time in 59 years what was going on around me.”

Ward spoke as the guest of Rotarian and CASA volunteer Sonja Smith.

“He has roots in Cass County,” she said. “His family has had summer property here since 1938. He was in the insurance industry for 35 years in regional management and marketing throughout the Midwest. He came back to this area in 2006″ and is nearing his one-year anniversary as director in July. He volunteered for CASA, SCORE business mentors and the Diamond Lake Association. His two daughters still live in Columbus, Ohio, where Ward and his wife lived before moving to Cassopolis.

Nationally, 720,000 children in the United States are wards of the court because “of something their parents did, which is primarily not taking care of them. They find themselves in the child welfare maze, surrounded by a lot of strangers who are caseworkers, social workers, policemen and foster parents. There are 68,000 CASA workers, volunteers appointed by a judge to watch over the children and to advocate for 240,000 children every year who have been abused or neglected. There are over a thousand programs. We’ve helped over 2 million abused children since the inception of CASA in 1977,” Ward said. “They stay with the case until it’s closed,” which differentiates a CASA from a caseworker, employed by the state who works with 30 to 40 children at a time.

Caseworkers can be reassigned at any time, so the CASA can become the one constant in a child’s life while others come and go.

CASAs develop fact-based information through interviews about the child, who is never taken to the volunteer’s home.

The CASA makes recommendations to the judge who swore them in while developing a “support system” for the child.

CASAs represent the child’s “best interests,” but are independent, which gave them more continuity than other elements of the system.

“There is only one mission in the CASA organization,” Ward said, “and that’s to find a safe, permanent home as quickly as possible.”

Three outcomes can be expected, though reunification with biological parents rarely occurs. Another is adoption. Third, finding a permanent home that fulfills their needs.

Ward characterized CASAs as “team players” who work alongside attorneys, state Department of Human Services (DHS) caseworkers, therapists and the judge. “We gather information together and make our recommendations,” he said.

It takes a considerable time commitment, which Ward said CASA tries to “never sugar-coat” so volunteers don’t walk away after undergoing 35 to 40 hours of classroom instruction spread over four to five weeks in 10 sessions, plus eight to 12 hours a month after the initial training.

“It’s a big chunk with homework and reading, but it’s over after a month,” he said. “The monthly commitment is that you usually see your child two or three times a month. Initially, you have investigative work to do, looking at all the circumstances surrounding the child. You may be interviewing parents, school teachers and counselors and aunts and uncles.”

Cass County CASA is structured as a stand-alone, 501(c)3 non-profit.

Thirty percent of its funds come from county, state and federal government, 20 percent from community foundations such as St. Denys, Gateway and United Way, and 50 percent from private fundraising.

Past fundraisers have been consolidated into the third annual CASAblanca coming up July 25 at Southwestern Michigan College Mathews Conference Center East.

The live and silent auction took place the first year at Orchard Hills Country Club and last year at Dowagiac Elks. “We outgrew this room,” he said. “We need room for 200 or more guests. Dinner is provided by eight restaurants who have donated their specialties. We’ve put all our eggs in this one basket.

While many people would like to see Albany County Family Court judge, Gerard Maney, removed from the bench if convicted of DWAI, it is likely that he will only be admonished by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Admonishment is the least severe of the punishments that the commission metes out. The other punishments are censure and removal from the bench.

In 2004 the commission ruled on David J. Pajak, a Justice of the Pembroke Town Court in Genesee County. Pajak had been arrested for DWI in 2003 after having an accident that caused property damage. In its decision the commission stated that “A judge who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol violates the law and imperils public safety.” The commission also stated that “By failing to abide by the laws that he is called upon to apply in court, respondent undermined his effectiveness as a judge and brought the judiciary as a whole into disrepute.”

Having said that, the commission went on to state the mitigating and/or aggravating factors that it uses when considering a case. These include the level of intoxication, whether or not the judge’s actions caused an accident or injured someone, whether the incident was an isolated one, the conduct of the judge during arrest and whether or not the judge needs treatment and how willing he is to seek treatment.

The commission concluded that there were no exacerbating circumstances in David Pajak’s case, but that he should be punished because of the seriousness of driving while under the influence of alcohol and because judges must be held to the highest standards of conduct. All of the commission voted to admonish Pajak, except for Stephen Coffey who felt the punishment was not severe enough.

Of the three cases that the commission cited in their decision on Pajak, all involving justices drinking and driving, two were admonished and one was censured. It appears that the judge who was censured was censured because he had two previous alcohol related arrests, was belligerent and abusive when arrested, and tried to use his judicial position to get the police to go easier on him.

Judge Gerard Maney’s case differs from David Pajak’s in that it did not cause property damage. It also differs, however, in that Judge Maney is a Family Court judge, an acting Supreme Court justice and a Drug Court justice. Whether the commission will consider these factors if they end up ruling on Judge Maney remains to be seen. Until the commission meets, it appears that Judge Gerard Maney’s future depends in part on his cooperativeness with traffic court.