(Image source from: dnaindia.com)
The state of Court’s Appeal has reversed a Department of Child Safety (DCS) case, that severed a mothers rights of parenting her two children. The court ruled that DCS did not present complete evidence and the child welfare workers presented a case, “not sufficiently rooted in the evidence”
There were a number of flaws in the 2.5 year old case. The DCS case worker and the psychologist appointed by state to evaluate the mother’s psychological condition did not furnish all details. The three Judge Appeal panel comprising Judge Peter B Swann the acting presiding Judge, other Judges being Michael J. Brown and Patricia A. Swann stated, “The earlier report appeared to have just one motive behind separating the kids from their mother, which was the children were adoptable”
In this ruling the Juvenile court’s decision was reversed and sent back with vague course of action further. This is very rare and unusual as stated by DCS as even the Attorney General’s office was backing in addition to the court ruling.
The DCS is reviewing the case and will evaluate their next move based on the learning from report review. The spokesman for DCS Darren Daronco stated, "We will conduct a careful review of the facts of this case before deciding how to proceed, as we do in each case when considering what permanency plan is most appropriate,"
The details are yet unknown and just the name of the mother Alma S had been found so far. How the mothers rights were severed and how did the children manage in the meantime stays vague. To adhere to the laws and maintaining privacy of the juvenile’s affected, this information is sealed by the DCS. The custody details of the children can lead to their identification so the same has been undisclosed.
The case occurred 2.5 years back when a Hospital official contacted DCS post attending to a fractured leg of the child. The child also had bruises over his body and even a fractured rib to which Hospital official suspected child abuse. The DCS first began with providing services to the family and to keep it all unified. But early 2016 the entire shift towards severance and adoption case moved this to and altogether different level.
The father of the juveniles said not to fight severance and had his rights revoked further. But the mother did not approve of this DCS recommendation and invoked her 5th Amendment right to stay silent at court proceeding when asked about abuse or delay in bringing the child to hospital despite injuries.
So her testimony stayed blank, thus the Juvenile court then took the Psychologists analysis for the mother as the base for concluding the mother unfit for parenting. As the psychologist’ report suggested, the mother suffered substance abuse, personality disorders and other issues there in.
But this recent ruling where Swann reviewed this finding from past 2 years stated it as, “untethered to the evidence” This has made this case a rare decision for an Appeals court. In his 15 page ruling he has condemned the evidence as the cause enough to support the unfitness of the mother to parent her children. This has triggered a debate on how the case manager assigned in 2016 failed to pursue his duties well. Since the new case manager never met the mother outside of court and just consulted one worker from DCS to build up on this case. There were no visits to check the feasibility of children staying put with their mother at home and neither did the manager try and find how well the birth father of the child was in relation with the mother or not.
This built upon the unsuitability of the evidence which is not adequate enough to severe a mothers rights. The partial information from DCS and improper work by case manager resulted in inappropriate representation of the facts that support mothers health to parent the child. In the later reports which were not included for the ruling, the mother was fulfilling all the demands of DCS to get her child back. She tested clean for drugs, got successful domestic-violence counseling and also successfully supervised visits with kids in last 8 months. She always came prepared and furnished proper parenting skills but these facts remained unavailable in the Juvenile courts ruling.
The psychologist’s report was lacking the thorough details which make it inadmissible to the proceedings. The appeal court also ruled that little evidence was shown how adoption would work in best interest of the children.
"(A)part from these unsupported, conclusory opinions, the only evidence that severance is in the children's best interests is the fact that the children are adoptable," the appeals ruling stated. Even the siblings were permanently separated from the ruling for adoption which debarred the children to stay in the same household. The judges noted “it is not permissible to adopt out children on the assumption that someone with better parenting skills might be able to care for a child. Instead, DCS must show a substantial likelihood that the parent cannot effectively parent in the near future”
By Minu Manisha
