Monday, February 18, 2013
My experience as a witness: the outcome
Since readers want to know. . .
The judge on my patient's case denied the State's request to remove her children at this time.
Since issues regarding regression and bonding were brought up, in addition to individual therapy, I will also be working with my patient and her preschool age daughter.
Since court, my patient and I have had the most productive session we ever had. I now feel even more confident with my clinical impressions that she has potential to continue to be a good mother and potential for greater growth.
The in home therapist who was a key witness for the prosecution apparently did not hold up well on cross examination. I was told that every general critique of my patient came with no concrete examples. Apparently she is also mistaking the way my patient sometimes expresses herself, a function of her character issues, for being high. My patient is drug/alcohol tested randomly with great frequency. She has had not one positive test in years. Apparently the in home therapist vomited after her testimony and so far has not been back to my patient's home to work with her. My patient finds this highly entertaining and proof of karma.
My patient has never in her life experienced the support she did by the defense attorney and me. I saw a light in her eyes last week that I had never seen before.
I found out that the case manager on her case is a newbie. I am wondering if there will be a changing of the guard after the State was made to look a bit dumb.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not defending her, but maybe the reason the in-home therapist was a horrible witness, and couldn't give concrete examples is that she was too sick to think straight?
ReplyDeleteI have been ill to the point where I could not even remember my name, and we don't know that woman's story.
Glad your sessions with her are going so well:)
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWe clinicians are not usually put on the stand at all. It is nerve wracking to be a witness. I think the clinician is well intentioned. I spoke to her for quite a while the week before when we sat waiting for 3 hours and were never called in. I think she is well intentioned and engages the kids well but it ends there. I simply don't think she is a very well trained clinician. She flat out told me that this case is taking up too much of her time and she wasn't happy that she was still on it.
"I found out that the case manager on her case is a newbie. I am wondering if there will be a changing of the guard after the State was made to look a bit dumb."
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is why the prosecution was not able to make a stronger case? Because the CM was new? Just wondering because it seems like the State's concerns were not so dumb after all.
I believe, just like the clinician, you are well intentioned, but it scares me that the children had to be apprehended so quickly after such a victorious court case. I know the tone of this comment comes out poorly. It just seems to me that there must have been valid concerns. Maybe substance abuse doesn't always mean the child is at risk, but substance abuse can lead to a lot of harmful situations.
Sigh. . . It wasn't substance use. That is cross the board legit. She has been clean for 4 years. Look, what is I told you that she was court ordered not to smoke cigarettes in the house and was caught doing it twice? Would you then have just a tiny bit of room in your heart and mind to respect me as a professional and get that the world doesn't actually consist of good guys who are always right and bad guys who are always wrong? You also have to understand the depths of the trauma that it is for a child to be removed from a loving mother. The decision to remove needs to be what is best for the children. It is done as an absolute last resort when it needs to be done. In all the years working in my own county, I can count on two fingers how many bio parents had children removed where I did not feel it was what was needed for the child. They were both cases of teen foster kids where the system did not prepare in advance for a proper mother child placement and they were left in the 11th hour having to separate them.
ReplyDeleteAlso state looked dumb when it was clear that the newbie case worker did not do her job on many levels. It is a DAG who argues a case, not a case manager. The case would be dismissed again today. Prior to the hearing, the court order was not in place. Nothing
ReplyDeleteThat I said on the stand was negated. I told the truth on the stand and included my patient's limitations. Nothing that my patient did since then came in contradiction to what I had said on the stand. If she were no longer sober, brought a child molester in the home as you suggested, you truly show that you don't know the first thing about me if you can imagine that I wouldn't support that removal.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to continue to leave comments with a challenging and hostile tone, give me the respect of reading more often blog and pick a moniker. I will not defend myself to you further.
TO,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry if you felt my comments were hostile.
Perhaps our systems differ, as where I live the child is not removed unless there are no other options, ie immediate risk to the child(ren). I realise that you are unable to share what court orders where broken, but usually court orders are not benign limitations. I do believe I pointed out that perhaps even breaking the court order did not put the child at risk.
Again, I hope this case is resolved in such a manner that the child is going to have a 'forever family', be that with her bio-mom, or a new family situation. I think the greatest travesty is when the child lingers in the system for so long (while everyone is working with the bio family) that they never find a stable housing/family situation.
As you know from the process to adopt CD often the child can be in care for years and years before they become eligible for adoption (and CD's Mom actually 'stepped out early'!).
Perhaps the district you are working with is biased against bio families, and sets up unrealistic expectations.
I do think you lean towards letting the child(ren) stay with the bio parents. Maybe this view comes from your heritage? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. We need people like you to support people in need. Please understand that I am aware and support that CPS is there to REUNIFY the family.
I did not suggest that Mom was absolutely going to bring in a child molester. That was an example.
I perhaps did mean to challenge you, but I did not mean to be hostile. Your tone suggested that you thought they looked dumb etc. They probably were unprepared with a new CM etc! I just wanted to point out that perhaps they had valid concerns.
It maybe unfair for me to defend them, as I don't know what she got in trouble for. If it truly is a small infraction, then maybe apprehending the child was an overstep.
I do have the point of view that if the system felt Mom was unfit, and then she 'gets caught' less than a month later that perhaps their assessment was correct. Usually CPS has to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that the child would be at risk before a judge would allow the child to be removed, even on a temporary basis, let alone in a permanent situation.
Again, perhaps that county has different criteria. I just can't imagine that they would apprehend the child unless it was necessary. (Just to be clear, you did state that you felt this county was biased against them, so I realise they might have MUCH higher (unobtainable)standards!).
I did not mean to get on your bad side. We both know the system is very broken. The goal of SS is to offer support to parents who need it so that the family unit can remain intact. Bio parents, by and large, are given every opportunity to retain custody of their children. More often than not, bio parents rights are paramount to any other consideration, even what is in the best interests of the child. (Or that is how it is where I live - I have had children crying because the children were ordered returned and they desperately did not want to return to Mom!).
It is really, really painful when another 2 or 3 or 4 years go by and then the children are re-apprehended. They usually can not go back to the same placement, and if they FINALLY go PGO, then they are often too old to be adopted (as few people adopt older children, then had a better chance when they were younger, thus they linger in the system - this is not all cases, but does happen with some frequency).
Perhaps I judged this case on less information that needed, and on my own personal experience. I apologize for that.
I hope you had a great weekend with your kids. And I hope you can understand an appreciate my point of view, as I appreciate the work you do as well.
Oops! I forgot to add my name:
ReplyDeleteAngela.
(Sorry, out of habit I pressed publish etc!).
Angela,
ReplyDeleteIt continue to find it insulting to refer to me as being "biased" in any way but to do what is best for the children. And now to start speculating on my "heritage" when I am an atheist who chose to adopt a child not of my heritage than bring more children into the world? As I feel like I keep repeated, most of my experience prior to this past summer when I picked up a job in a new to me county were as you describe. I am horrified at what I am seeing in this county. You say you couldn't imagine it but the limitations to your imagination does not negate my experience with system folks who remove children when they don't meet the criteria that I am not only accustomed to, but believe is moral and in the best interest of the children.
Angela,
ReplyDeleteI did tell you the court order.
OH, sorry, I did not realise you were serious that smoking in the house was the court order! I have never heard of that before.
ReplyDeleteAnd heritage was perhaps the wrong word. I was referring to comments you made about how few children would be apprehended where you came from. If my word choice was poor, then I am accountable for that.
I will not apologize that I think you are biased towards returning to bio parents in most cases. I could point out examples, but you seem like anything I say will not be accepted by you. I am sorry for this, because I am a long time reader of your blog, and feel like any comments I make now will be subject to attack.
I have always supported your role in CD's life, and have offered many compliments. I know I offered another point of view of this case and 'challenged' you.
I will not comment anymore, as this is your blog. I do wish you every success in the future.
Darn. I forgot to sign, AGAIN!
ReplyDeleteAngela.
So when you said my "heritage" you meant my COUNTY?? I did not grow up here and I live in a large county which happens to very diverse both ethnically and economically. It is also the county with the largest number of foster kids in the state.
ReplyDeleteI do tend to tell the stories that are the exceptions to the rule. I don't bother telling the dozens of stories where I was an evaluator and found a parent to be incompetent to parent. There are enough if those stories around. You clearly have a fondness for projecting all sorts of things on people. I wonder how far that gets you and the people you rush to judge in your life. It is quote arrogant that you think you know my motivations better than me and my professional cases better than me. It is difficult for me to take you very seriously when you do that actually. It saddens me that if you are anywhere in the system that you could be repeating that armchair psychologist behavior with any child or adult that crosses your path. Rule number one in getting to know people is font assume you know anything about that or what makes them tick. It pushes people away when people do that and for good reason.
angela, I am not looking for compliment and from mt stats it is clear that most of my readers don't comment at all. I write for myself and I wrote a lot this week because it has been a very difficult week. I am not surprised that you support my role with CD. Hers is as clear cut as they come. After everything else, she was abandoned. And you obviously have you own biases.
ReplyDeleteTO, please, just stop replying. I don't know why some commenter decided to come along and decide that you don't look at what is best for the kids because you are "biased" toward the bio parents. It is your job to see the nuances of the cases and see people as three dimensional and not rush to assume anything. Why a commenter assumed that the "system" knows what it's doing and you don't (when you are a part of the system, right?) is downright confusing. If judges and case workers didn't want your input because they know it all already, would they be paying you for evaluations? This idea that there are all these wonderful foster homes and adoptive homes for kids is a dangerous notion. We know there aren't. To me, being biased AGAINST reunification is even more dangerous that being biased toward it. I don't know where that anon person thinks these kids are going but if she thinks they are land in homes like your and life happily every after. . .well, she is in a dreamland.
ReplyDeleteSo stop responding to people who don't get it. Like you said, it's been a rough week. Take a break. So what, there is someone wrong on the internet. You can let it go.
-S.