whateveryparentshouldknow

By Arthur Raymond
Deseret News
Published: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:45 p.m. MDT
17 comments
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + -
A Texas judge has ordered the nation’s largest child-custody case be severed into 234 individual cases, with separations based on biological mothers.

Previously, 346 of the 440 children taken from the Fundamentalist LDS Church’s YFZ Ranch were lumped into two large court cases. Texas 51st District Judge Barbara Walther issued the separation orders on Thursday in response to motions filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

“We were able to file this motion with the court in an effort to make a very large and very complex case easier to manage for the court, for our agency, and for all of the other parties,” said DFPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins.

In April, Walther ordered all children living at the ranch in Eldorado, Texas, to be removed and placed into state custody. Several weeks later, an appeals court and the state’s Supreme Court both ruled that the children had been improperly removed from their families and the children were returned.

The families, however, are required to comply with a list of requirements as Child Protective Services workers continue to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect.

Lawyers for FLDS children and parents complained that CPS officials unfairly treated them as one large household, rather than as individual families. Walther’s order legally separates the families from one another.

Crimmins noted the new alignment of cases, in sibling groups according to mother, has consistently been one of his agency’s goals, and is standard practice in child protective cases.

He said his agency has been able to accurately establish family relationships of most children and mothers who were removed from the ranch.

FLDS leader Warren Jeffs and five FLDS men were indicted earlier this week on charges of sexual abuse of a child, bigamy and failure to report child abuse. The identities of the five men are sealed until the indictments are served.

E-mail: araymond@desnews.com

By Sam Stanton - sstanton@sacbee.com

Last Updated 2:45 pm PDT Thursday, July 24, 2008

Print | E-Mail | Comments (19) | |

Jonathan Lamar Perry, the 26-year-old former security guard accused of beating a 4-year-old boy to death, was under observation in a psychiatric cell today after he indicated a desire to harm himself, Sacramento County Sheriff’s officials said.

He was scheduled to be arraigned today. His arraignment was rescheduled for 1:30 p.m. Friday.

Perry is being held at the Sacramento County jail on murder and child endangerment charges in the death of Jahmaurae Allen, his girlfriend’s son.

Posted: July 25, 2008 11:46 PM

Updated: July 25, 2008 11:46 PM

STURGIS, Mich. (WOOD) — Police in Sturgis arrested a 36-year-old man after they say he sexually assaulted a child.

Peter Linnell was taken into custody at his home around 7:30 p.m. Wednesday. The Department of Human Services, Child Protective Services section, assisted in the investigation.

Linnell is facing two counts of first-degree criminal sexual assault to person under the 13 years of age, and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and fourth-degree child abuse.

Linnell posted a $750 bond and was released from jail Thursday.

© 2008 The Associated Press
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Recommend
Comments (3)
Yahoo! Buzz

SAN ANGELO, Texas — The judge who had her custody decision reversed on more than 400 polygamist sect children has ordered the cases divided by mother, meaning there are now 234 separate child welfare cases from the Yearning For Zion Ranch.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther on Thursday signed orders splitting the children who were previously lumped into two large court cases, creating 119 new cases. Court-ordered DNA testing was used to determine the divisions.

The new cases are in addition to 115 individual cases authorities began filing soon after an April raid prompted by claims that children were being abused. The state seized all children at the ranch, and officials eventually were overwhelmed by the number of cases and began lumping many of them together.

Currently, 440 children are being monitored by child welfare officials.

While the split creates more cases, it reduces the paperwork that must be sent to lawyers and parents involved by narrowing cases to specific families, said Child Protective Services spokesman Patrick Crimmins.

The Texas Supreme Court in May struck down Walther’s order that the children taken from the YFZ Ranch be placed in foster care, saying authorities had shown no more than a handful of teenage girls were abused or at risk.

A child welfare investigation continues even though the children were returned to their parents last month.

Lawyers for children and parents from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints complained from the beginning that they were unfairly treated as one large group, rather than individual households. Thursday’s order legally separates them from one another.

Separately, five men, including jailed FLDS leader Warren Jeffs, were indicted for sexual abuse of a child on Tuesday in Eldorado. A sixth sect member was indicted for failure to report child abuse.

Misguided shield for abusive parents
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Darin Strauss
July 26, 2008

RECENTLY, a child in Seattle made repeated trips to the hospital for vomiting. His doctor found traces of a toxic chemical in the child’s urine. The doctor alerted Child Protective Services, and police visited the child’s home. They found the chemical in the family’s medicine cabinet. Child Protective Services then accused the mother of repeatedly poisoning her child. This was allegedly Munchausen by Proxy - a syndrome whereby parents hurt their children to gain notoriety.

Child Protective Services removed the child from his home. But then the case swerved in a surprising direction. A local newspaper called the doctor overzealous. Because of confidentiality laws, the doctor couldn’t defend himself in print, even to reveal his evidence. The family became a cause célèbre: That’s the power of news media. Under public pressure, the child was returned to his mother and the risk that she might injure him yet again.

In New York, lawmakers are sponsoring a bill to make it harder for experts to act against guardians who are suspected of Munchausen by Proxy. The bill, if it passes, is likely to be repeated in other states. On the surface, the bill seems right. Who doesn’t want to protect families from government pen pushers and grasping doctors? But this underestimates the complexity of the problem. Its passage would likely lead to more children being kept in danger.

Munchausen by Proxy was identified 30 years ago by the controversial British pediatrician Roy Meadow. (He was knighted for this discovery in 1998). Meadow’s reputation guttered after he helped with the prosecution of Sally Clark - a woman convicted of murdering two of her sons; Meadow had cited faulty statistics about the “recurrence risk” for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Sally Clark was exonerated; though Meadow was found not guilty of “serious professional misconduct,” two additional cases on which he’d helped the prosecution were overturned and hundreds have been put under official review.

After that scandal, doctors making a Munchausen by Proxy diagnosis often have been made to look zealous, even antifamily. While the parents can spoon-feed delectable lies to the press, the doctor - unable to make his case - is left to seem the guilty one.

Doctors aren’t keen to have their own reputations and legal fates mingled with those of people who can defame them. The medical community has recently learned - after brushing the stove a few times, coming away with a number of high-profile burns - that the risks in making a Munchausen by Proxy diagnosis may outweigh the rewards.

Certainly, Americans believe in our authority to raise our children as we see fit: About a month ago, a Texas court ruled that authorities couldn’t remove children from a polygamist compound, despite claims of child sexual abuse. And no one should take lightly the idea of the government plucking any child who’s trapped in an imperfect family and dropping him into the howling foster care system.

However, doctors normally don’t report Munchausen by Proxy; they report child abuse.

If a mother harms her child - or only lies about the severity of a real illness to bring about unnecessary treatment - it’s the child’s health that the doctor reports, and not Munchausen in the parent. All the same, it’s appropriate for the protective systems also to be concerned about the caretaker’s motives: Such factors can often predict how effective rehabilitation might be.

Munchausen by Proxy is a real syndrome. Last year, physicians diagnosed at least 1,200 cases in the United States. But doctors say the number of victims who go undiagnosed probably remains exponentially higher than that. Illness falsification also involves all gradations and severity of child injury.

Meanwhile, activists pushing for the kind of laws that shield parents from Munchausen accusations point to stats: Many accused parents do eventually win their children back. But that doesn’t disprove the diagnosis. Activists can speak while the doctors cannot. And shouldn’t the law be slanted toward the protection of the child?

Stories of Munchausen by Proxy often involve unbelievable details - fathers injecting sons with feces; mothers strangling babies. And so, naturally, juries and even judges often find it hard to fathom that parents would do the unfathomable. I’m sure the lawmakers behind the Albany bill are motivated by the most innocent of reasons: helping reunite broken families. But I’m reminded of Graham Greene’s line about innocence - that it’s like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm.

Darin Strauss is author of “More Than It Hurts You,” the story of a mother accused of Munchausen by Proxy.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Child Protective Services Opened Investigation Into Boy’s Welfare A Month Before Death
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ― The man accused of beating his girlfriend’s four-year-old son to death earlier this week did not appear at a hearing this afternoon in the case.

Twenty-six-year-old Jonathan Lamar Perry did not attend the hearing due to “psychological conditions.”  Instead, he is scheduled to appear in court tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

The arrest comes after deputies and paramedics were called to a Sacramento home on Oakhollow Drive Monday morning where they found Jahmaurae Allen, 4, unconscious. He was taken first to Mercy San Juan Hospital, and then to UCD Medical Center, where he died. Doctors say the child had suffered massive head and internal injuries.

Perry is being held in the Sacramento County Jail without bail.

The victim’s mother is not under any suspicion.

(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

The Catholic church has done much lately to protect children, but little to protect priests, says Terry Philpot
All comments (2)

* Terry Philpot
* The Guardian,
* Saturday July 26 2008
* Article history

Until 1992 the guidelines about child protection which governed the Catholic church in England and Wales were reactive: they were about what to do if a child was abused. Like the Catholic church in some other parts of the world, notably the US, the church here fell foul of a number of scandals where allegations of abuse were not only not reported to the police but suspect priests were moved elsewhere.

It was cases like these that caused the Bishops Conference of England and Wales in 2000 to set up an independent commission of inquiry under the Catholic peer and judge, the late Lord Nolan. Its majority of non-Catholic members drew up new proposals that enabled the church to adopt a preventative stance: how children and vulnerable adults could be better protected.

The Nolan report was published in 2001 and accepted by the bishops. The Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Adults (Copca) was created, together with a network, at parish and diocesan level and within religious orders, of child protection officers.

Nolan had recommended a review after five years, and, under another Catholic peer, the former Tory health minister Lady Cumberlege, last year such a review produced a report, Safeguarding with Confidence. While encouraged that so much progress had been achieved, it found that there remained serious flaws in the system. Much of this was the failure to adopt a “whole church” approach, which means that the Nolan recommendations had not been uniformly applied, but rather left to individual dioceses, religious orders or even parishes. To remedy this Copca has been abolished and in its place the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission has been established, which will ensure that policy on safeguarding children and voluntary adults is developed and that what needs to be done is implemented throughout the church. A Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service will advise church bodies and engage in training and development.

One of the most serious concerns has been the way that, after Nolan, accused clergy have been dealt with. They are not only suspended but evicted from their homes. Even when accusations are proved false or no conviction is secured in court, they can spend years in an ecclesiastical limbo undergoing psychological risk assessments and never returning to parish and ministry.

Cumberlege only goes part way to righting such matters in proposing an appeal against bishops’ decisions. This will mean that review panels will come into being in September. However, they will make judgments on whether a priest has been wrongly dealt with on the civil law criteria of the balance of probabilities. This is to be applied to a man against whom accusations have been found to be malicious or who, if taken to court, has been found not guilty. It is difficult to imagine a worst finding than one is “probably” safe to work with children or vulnerable adults.

Cumberlege refers to “safeguarding individuals against the possibilities of injustice”. Yet, the basis of its solution arguably contravenes favor rei, the doctrine, in the legal tradition of the church, that the accused enjoys the benefit of the law. The Children Act 1989 introduced the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. This does not apply to criminal law but, for all intents and purposes, that is exactly the principle that the church has incorporated into its own “judicial” process. A priest may still also be subjected to a psychological risk assessment. Is he being assessed about the chance of him doing something he never did in the first place? What sense can be made of a finding of “low risk” for someone found not guilty by the courts?

It is ironic that the church, which has justice as one of the central tenets of its social teaching, should so unjustly treat those who serve it.

· Terry Philpot is the author of Understanding Child Abuse: The Partners of Sex Offenders Tell Their Stories, to be published later this year by Routledge

Aftermath of FLDS raid
Texas judge breaks YFZ child custody case into 119 pieces
Attorneys hope some court actions will be dismissed now that cases are grouped by mother
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/26/2008 01:00:12 AM MDT

A Texas judge has ordered that a massive child custody case involving a polygamous sect be split up, a move that may be the first step in dismissing some cases while investigation continues in others.
Fifty-first District Judge Barbara Walther on Thursday ordered that the children’s cases be grouped by mother, resulting in 119 separate cases. Previously, the 440 children taken from the sect’s Yearning for Zion Ranch in April were lumped in two court cases.
State officials requested the change “to make a very large and very complex case easier to manage for the court, for our agency, and for all of the other parties,” said Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Walther also ordered that attorneys’ requests for information gathered by the state be suspended until she adopts a discovery management plan.
Many attorneys for children and parents had protested the state’s group approach and filed motions to separate their clients’ cases. Some attorneys also sought information from the state about allegations or findings involving their individual clients.
Texas authorities removed the children after receiving allegations of sexual, physical and emotional abuse at the ranch, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Negotiating when and what information
Advertisement

to provide to attorneys has “been unsuccessful,” the department’s motion said, “and resources that would otherwise be available to resolve legal issues relating to the children have been devoted to dealing with discovery requests and resulting disputes.”
The motion asked the judge to suspend discovery until the cases were severed, investigation completed and “cases that do not require further court intervention” are dismissed.
The department also proposed that the court adopt a “discovery control plan order” like one used by Child Protective Services in Travis County.
The order signed by Walther groups children with their mothers and assigns new case numbers under the mothers’ names.
“With all of the DNA results in, we now have been able to accurately establish family relationships of most children and mothers who were involved in the removal of children from the YFZ Ranch, and who are the subjects of our ongoing abuse/neglect investigation,” Crimmins said in an e-mail.
Several attorneys contacted by The Salt Lake Tribune had not yet been informed about the judge’s action.
“I hope this is the first step in dismissing some of these cases that don’t need further investigation,” said Dallas attorney Laura Shockley, who represents a child and a mother.
brooke@sltrib.com

Syllabus

RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. FLORES et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 91-905. Argued October 13, 1992 — Decided March 23, 1993

Respondents are a class of alien juveniles arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on suspicion of being deportable, and then detained pending deportation hearings pursuant to a regulation, promulgated in 1988 and codified at 8 CFR § 242.24 which provides for the release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances. An immigration judge will review the initial deportability and custody determinations upon request by the juvenile. §242.2(d). Pursuant to a consent decree entered earlier in the litigation, juveniles who are not released must be placed in juvenile care facilities that meet or exceed state licensing requirements for the provision of services to dependent children. Respondents contend that they have a right under the Constitution and immigration laws to be routinely released into the custody of other “responsible adults.” The District Court invalidated the regulatory scheme on unspecified due process grounds, ordering that “responsible adult part[ies]” be added to the list of persons to whom a juvenile must be released and requiring that a hearing before an immigration judge be held automatically, whether or not the juvenile requests it. The Court of Appeals, en banc, affirmed.

Held:

1. Because this is a facial challenge to the regulation, respondents must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the regulation would be valid. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745. Pp. 7-8.

2. Regulation 242.24, on its face, does not violate the Due Process Clause. Pp. 9-17.

(a) The regulation does not deprive respondents of “substantive due process.” The substantive right asserted by respondents is properly described as the right of a child who has no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the government is responsible, to be placed in the custody of a private custodian rather than of a government operated or government selected child care institution. That novel claim cannot be considered ” `so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’ ” United States v. Salerno, supra, at 751. It is therefore sufficient that the regulation is rationally connected to the government’s interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of detained juveniles, and is not punitive since it is not excessive in relation to that valid purpose. Nor does each unaccompanied juvenile have a substantive right to an individualized hearing on whether private placement would be in his “best interests.” Governmental custody must meet minimum standards, as the consent decree indicates it does here, but the decision to exceed those standards is a policy judgment, not a constitutional imperative. Any remaining constitutional doubts are eliminated by the fact that almost all respondents are aliens suspected of being deportable, a class that can be detained, and over which Congress has granted the Attorney General broad discretion regarding detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Pp. 9-13.

(b) Existing INS procedures provide alien juveniles with “procedural due process.” Respondents’ demand for an individualized custody hearing for each detained alien juvenile is merely the “substantive due process” argument recast in procedural terms. Nor are the procedures faulty because they do not require automatic review by an immigration judge of initial deportability and custody determinations. In the context of this facial challenge, providing the right to review suffices. It has not been shown that all of the juveniles detained are too young or ignorant to exercise that right; any waiver of a hearing is revocable; and there is no evidence of excessive delay in holding hearings when requested. Pp. 14-17.

3. The regulation does not exceed the scope of the Attorney General’s discretion to continue custody over arrested aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). It rationally pursues a purpose that is lawful for the INS to seek, striking a balance between the INS’s concern that the juveniles’ welfare will not permit their release to just any adult and the INS’s assessment that it has neither the expertise nor the resources to conduct home studies for individualized placements. The list of approved custodians reflects the traditional view that parents and close relatives are competent custodians, and otherwise defers to the States’ proficiency in the field of child custody. Theregulation is not motivated by administrative convenience; its use of presumptions and generic rules is reasonable; and the period of detention that may result is limited by the pending deportation hearing, which must be concluded with reasonable dispatch to avoid habeas corpus. Pp. 17-22.

942 F. 2d 1352, reversed and remanded.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Souter, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined.

Statewide

Arizona Community Service Legal Assistance Affordable Housing Law Program
Primary Address: 111 W Monroe St Ste 1800
City: Phoenix
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85003-1742
General Phone: 602-340-7356
Fax: 602-271-4930
Case Types: Community Economic Development, Housing, Real Estate
Other Case Types: Incorporation, Tax Shelter

Coconino

Volunteer Lawyer Program — DNA People’s Legal Services
Primary Address: 201 E Birch Avenue Suite 5
City: Flagstaff
State: AZ
Zipcode: 86001-5734
General Phone: 928 774-0653 x4817
Fax: 928-774-9452
Intake Phone: 928-774-0653
Counties Served: Coconino
Case Types: Bankruptcy, Consumer, Child Custody, Dissolution of Marriage, Domestic Violence, Elder Law, Employment, Health, Housing, Individual Rights, Wills
Case Restrictions: Income eligibility.
Web Site: http://www.nativelegalnet.org

GILA

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc. - Gila, Navajo & Apache Counties Office White Mountain Legal Aid
Primary Address: 5658 Highway 260 15
City: Lakeside
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85929
General Phone: 928-537-8383
Fax: 928-537-1838
Counties Served: Apache, Gila, Navajo

Gila

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc. - Pinal County Office
Primary Address: 766 North Park Avenue
City: Casa Grande
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85222
General Phone: 520-316-8076
Fax: 520-316-8063
Counties Served: Gila, Pinal
Case Types: Bankruptcy, Community Economic Development, Consumer, Child Custody, Dissolution of Marriage, Domestic Violence, Education, Employment, Health, Housing, Public Benefits, Real Estate
Other Case Types: Litigation Problems
Case Restrictions: No eviction cases involving drug related arrests or convictions

Maricopa

AIDS Project Arizona
Primary Address: 2417 North 3rd Street 125
City: Phoenix
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85004
General Phone: 602-253-2437
Fax: 602-253-5577
Counties Served: Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma
Case Types: AIDS/HIV, Adoption, Bankruptcy, Health, Individual Rights, Public Benefits, Real Estate, Wills
Web Site: http://www.apaz.org
Organization Email: noval@apaz.org

Arizona Community Legal Assistance
Primary Address: 305 S. 2nd Avenue
City: Phoenix
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85003
General Phone: 602-258-3434
Intake Phone: 602-258-3434 x2470
Counties Served: Maricopa, Mohave, Yavapai, Yuma
Case Types: Community Economic Development
Other Case Types: Non-profit assistance
Case Restrictions: Transactional only.

Justice For Children
Primary Address: P.O. Box 45500 124K
City: Phoenix
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85064
General Phone: 602-235-9300
Intake Phone: 602 235-9300
Counties Served: Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal
Other Case Types: Child Abuse
Case Restrictions: Documented cases of child abuse.
Web Site: http://www.justiceforchildren.org/

Maricopa County Volunteer Lawyers Program
Primary Address: PO Box 21538
City: Phoenix
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85003
General Phone: 602-258-3434
Fax: 602-254-9059
Intake Phone: 602-258-3434
Counties Served: Maricopa
Case Types: Bankruptcy, Community Economic Development, Consumer, Child Custody, Dissolution of Marriage, Domestic Violence, Elder Law, Employment, Housing, Individual Rights, Juvenile, Public Benefits, Real Estate, Torts, Wills
Case Restrictions: Financial eligibility, program guidelines/priorities, and legal merit
Web Site: http://www.vlpmaricopa.org

Pima

Tucson AIDS Project
Primary Address: 151 S Tucson Blvd
City: Tucson
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85716
General Phone: 520-882-7108
Fax: 520-884-8231
Other Case Types: AIDS/HIV

Volunteer Lawyers Program Of Southern Arizona
Primary Address: 64 E Broadway Blvd
City: Tucson
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85701-1720
General Phone: 520-623-9465
Fax: 520-623-0161
Intake Phone: 800-640-9465
Counties Served: Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz
Case Types: Bankruptcy, Community Economic Development, Consumer, Child Custody, Dissolution of Marriage, Domestic Violence, Education, Elder Law, Employment, Health, Housing, Immigration, Individual Rights, Juvenile, Public Benefits, Real Estate, Torts, Wills
Case Restrictions: LSC Guidelines.
Web Site: http://www.vlparizona.org

Pinal

Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project
Primary Address: PO Box 654
City: Florence
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85232
General Phone: 520-868-0191
Fax: 520-868-0192
Counties Served: Pinal
Case Types: Immigration, Individual Rights, Juvenile
Other Case Types: Immigration detention
Case Restrictions: The only restriction is that men, women and children are in detention facing deportation or removal from the United States.
Web Site: http://www.firrp.org
Organization Email: info@firrp.org

Santa Cruz

Southern Arizona Legal Aid Inc.
Primary Address: 1071 N Grand Ave Ste 110
City: Nogales
State: AZ
Zipcode: 85621-1382
General Phone: 602-287-9441
Fax: 602-620-0443
Counties Served: Santa Cruz
Case Types: Dissolution of Marriage, Domestic Violence, Housing, Public Benefits, Wills
Case Restrictions: Undocumented individuals unless UAWA client’s.

Yavapai

Community Legal Services, Inc/ Yavapai County Pro Bono Program
Primary Address: 401 N Mount Vernon Ave
City: Prescott
State: AZ
Zipcode: 86301-2621
General Phone: 928-445-6312
Fax: 602-445-6312
Counties Served: Yavapai