mim@ihnp3.UUCP (M. K. Fenlon) (12/17/85)
In article <562@sigma.UUCP> root@sigma.UUCP () writes: >I received enough queries from the former posting that I feel a general reply >is called for. That posting was about a Child Protective Services (CPS) case >worker in Washington State who falsified evidence and coached children to >accuse their parents of abuse. > >Your questions should be referred to: > Coalition of Concerned Citizens/S.O.F.T. > 5312 9th Ave N.E. > Seattle, WA 98105 > >S.O.F.T. stands for "Save Our Family Ties": individuals and groups concerned >about legislation that relates to family life. The particular focus locally is >on Washington State's demonstrated proclivity for destroying families that fall >into its system. > >In one case recently where the father was accused of abusing his children (I >believe he was subsequently found innocent), the State encouraged his wife to >divorce him as a necessary precondition for returning their children home (to >her)! This is a common practice here, a first step towards getting spouses to >testify against each other. > >In another case (I know these people personally, this is not hearsay) the State >persuaded a teenage girl to testify that her father sexually abused her (she >was angry at the discipline he was imposing), resulting in a prison sentence >for him! She now admits she lied, but CPS and the State Attorney General will >not hear of it. It is part of their credo that a child always tells the truth >first, even though he or she may recant later. > >Particularly nefarious is the fact that these cases are usually tried in _two_ >courts at the same time. The first is a criminal court case which follows >nearly normal legal procedures (innocent until proven guilty, jury trial, etc), >except for the right to face your accusers. Because the courts in Washington >buy into the credo mentioned above, they accept hearsay testimony ("The social >worker says that your child once said .., therefore it is a fact."). The second >is a Juvenile Court case which legally(?) violates a number of Constitutional >rights (i.e. you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, hearsay evidence >is readily admitted, you do not get to have a jury trial, double jeopardy, >etc.). Even if the case is won in criminal court it will continue in the other, >typically for many months, sometimes years. > >Remember, while this is going on you do not get to see your children. The State >places them in a foster home for which you will have to pay. > >Also remember that all this can be brought on by a phone call to CPS from a >"friend", neighbor, your own child, or his teacher. In Washington State, >teachers are required by law to report anything they think _might_ be a sign of >abuse, under threat of being named an accomplice. There are also cases of >teenagers who blackmail their parents (for the car keys, removal of curfew, >money, etc.) with threats of calling CPS. > >CPS gets federal funding based on the size of their "body-counts", so it is in >their best (monetary) interests to prosecute one and all. This emphasis is >clearly shown by a recent letter to the Seattle Times (12/8/85): "Far more >individuals who have assaulted children will escape the legal consequences of >their actions than innocent adults caught in the system". (A Freudian slip?) > >This letter clearly shows their intent. They want convictions, and they do not >care how many innocent families, how many innocent lives, they destroy. > > >If you live in Washington, one of those lives could be yours. > Other states may not be vicious on purpose, but the trama that the false allegations inflict on the innocent is terrible too. I know of two cases where innocent parties were hurt and frustrated by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services(DCFS). In the first case, it was mistaken identity. A woman at the YMCA was physically and psychologically abusing her child, Jenny. The Y made a report but for the wrong family. Although this case was unfounded, the family(father is a youth officer and the mother a nurse) had to be investigated. In the second case, a child(age 5) in a divorced family realized that to make her mother happy, she had to say bad things about her father. Fortunately, the DCFS worker was wise enough to see the true problem in the case. The social worker recommended therapy for both the mother and daughter. The mother refused therapy once it was directed at herself so the child still tends to tell wild stories especially when she is unaware of the implications involved. The child loves her father, but gets caught by the leading questions and proding of her mother. The father never knows when another investigation might be needed. For the first few months after the investigation, he was uncomfortable with normal father child closeness. The child also became shy and would refuse a kiss on the forehead or a hug good bye. The child use to draw pictures of herself and her father with a big smiles on their faces. She would not draw her mothers picture because as she said "I can't draw a mad angry face." Now she draws her family with her mother and she (the child) has a big frown. The child never lies credo mentioned above is a terrifying one. I know that children do lie. Sometimes it is done maliciously, but in this case the child was unaware of the implications of her stories. The child had no concept of an external reality. Real was what someone believed. She would be punished if she said good things about her father. Fortunately her stories were wild and only believable to her mother. Also, because of the fear of that the mother would do something to prevent visitation, a detailed diary was kept of each visitation. The diary showed where, who and what was involved on each visit. The father being sociable often joined other families so there were many witness to reality. I still want to scream everytime I hear in the news media "a child never lies!" The social service unit investigating the cases of abuse should treat the whole family and not just focus on the alleged abuse. When a an allegation is made, there is a problem; it may not be abuse, but it means a family is having problems. In the second case described above, there was no follow up to check that the mother followed through on the prescribed therapy. In the cases mentioned in the article on Washington state, it seems that the investigators should emphasize the social and mental health aspects of the case and put less emphasis on the punative efforts. The victims of real child abuse need to be protected, but also we must help the victims abused by the protective system and we should move to develop adaquate protections against the use of the system for manevolent reasons.