He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
John Hancock
New Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
When in the course of human events …
Please share widely!
fieldscornerguy says
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
howland-lew-natick says
jane says
hlpeary says
Here is a great reading of the Declaration by John F. Kennedy…
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
mcprutter says
Read it and weep, indeed: 230 years later — maybe time to resubmit certain Facts to a candid world.
<
p>
Thanks for posting.
david says
what would the Founding Fathers do?
lasthorseman says
sharoney says
mcprutter, NPR every year reads the entire Declaration as part of its Independence Day observance during Morning Edition. Each NPR employee reads one line each.
<
p>
This was the first year I listened with tears of sorrow and rage streaming down my face.
<
p>
All I could think was, “And THIS is what all these noble sentiments, this collective work of political genius, has come to.”
<
p>
I’m sure I don’t have to explain what I meant by “this.”
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I was driving to the East Longmeadow parade to march with Senator Candaras, to show my appreciation for her being one of the legislators who switched votes to be in favor of equal marriage. I had NPR on the radio, and they started to read the Declaration. I couldn’t work up any rage, but I did have tears streaming down my cheeks.
<
p>
It’s nice to be reminded that this country was founded on idealism, and has wandered badly away from that. It’s not just our imagination!
afertig says
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: “
<
p>
“For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:”
<
p>
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:”
<
p>
“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”
joes says
This is now, another George acting the same.
amberpaw says
“for transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” sure sounds a lot like rendition, the detainees at Guantanamo, and the so-called “black prisons” run by the CIA.
geo999 says
Could you like, provide some citations for me? I really want to know more about this.
<
p>I had no idea that American Citizens were being taken abroad by our government for detention on foreign soil.
<
p>That would really piss me off.
joeltpatterson says
Would you be angry about the torture if you didn’t like the American citizen?
<
p>
<
p>The large metal container sounds like something the Imperial Japanese military did (also like something Jim Crow-era Southern prisons did). But since we’re talking about Lindh, who many Americans despise, I think most Americans wouldn’t consider this harsh treatment to be a breakdown in military discipline, nor torture.
<
p>Jose Padilla was imprisoned for three and half years without charges being brought. Three and a half years is too long for a government to wait to charge a man.
from NYT
Being incommunicado for two years is torture.
<
p>Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Hamdi was a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan. The government claimed he was an unlawful combatant, Hamdi’s father claimed he was a relief worker. He was imprisoned in Gitmo, then Virginia and South Carolina. When the SCOTUS ordered Bush to give him his day in court, he was sent to Saudi Arabia and freed as a condition of renouncing his citizenship.
What the Bush Administration did to Hamdi doesn’t sound to me like the behavior of a democratic government opposed to tyranny.
<
p>Lindh, Padilla, Hamdi–if you think they are bad, evil people, does that make their unlawful imprisonment and torture in according with the principles in our Declaration of Independence?
joeltpatterson says
“in according” should be “in accord”
geo999 says
…that I could hate well enough.
<
p>I am quite satisfied to have them tried and punished under our justice system.
peter-porcupine says
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: “
bostonshepherd says
And since when is BMG able to confer that status on … anyone?
<
p>
Way to twist the Delcaration.
david says
who you’re responding to. If it’s to me, then I’m confused – I said nothing about Hamdan. (And if it’s to someone else, use the nifty “reply” feature to make that clear!)
<
p>
In any case, I’m sure I needn’t remind you that the administration took basically the same line with Jose Padilla, who is a US citizen, until they got spooked that they’d lose in court and transferred him to civilian custody at the last possible second, thereby mooting the case (at least in the eyes of 6 Justices). Heroic, no?
rafi says
I suppose your implication is that the authors of the Declaration were really concerned with the citizens of the colonies, and I’m sure that’s correct (although I do find the part about hindering immigration into the colonies very interesting). Everyone who’s talking about Hamden, however, is conflating the Declaration with the Constitution.
<
p>
The Constitution is the actual law of the land. Since Hamden first came out, I’ve been wondering about what the Constitution actually says about foreign nationals and our legal system. After all, when a foreign national is charged with a crime in the US, he gets all the legal protections that citizens receive, including trial by jury, the right to an attorney, the right to be present, etc. So my question has been, is that something we just choose to do to, or is it something we’re bound to do?
<
p>
Well, if you read the actual text, relevant passages like the Fifth Amendment talk about people, not citizens, using terms such as “no person shall…” to describe constitutional protections. In fact, a cursory examination suggests the term “citizen” is only used to describe things that only citizens are allowed to do, like vote. In fact, if you read the Fourteenth Amendment, where citizenship is defined, you’ll notice that the text actually switches from using “citizen” in guaranteeing the privileges and immunities of citizenship to using the more general “person” in guaranteeing due process.
<
p>
It would seem that even a strict constructionist would have to agree that, wherever the Constitution applies, everyone is entitled to the protections of our legal system. The question that remains is whether the Constitution applies in Guantanamo Bay. The base is a legal oddity, as it’s completely controlled by the United States but is technically Cuban territory. Read up on the Platt Amendment to the 1905 Cuban constitution if you’re interested in the gory details. The Supreme Court found in Rasul v. Bush that the US’s exclusive control of the territory means the Constitution does in fact apply, which is how Hamden got to the Court in the first place. Of course, you can feel free to disagree with the Rasul decision — the question of Guantanamo’s sovereignty is clearly very complicated. But the bottom line is, Hamden’s citizenship doesn’t really matter.
<
p>
One of the things that makes America great is our understanding that every person is endowed with “certain unalienable rights.” Even a man who would protect one of the most hateful villains alive is entitled to a fair trial, lest we ever accidentally punish the wrong person. Let’s not allow the terrorists to scare us into dispensing with the values we hold so dear.
<
p>
Rafi
rightmiddleleft says
Al Qaeda is not a party to the Geneva Convention. They take pleasure in blowing themselves up (72 virgins await), and love to watch innocent people slowly decapitated on Internet video. But nevertheless, in lieu of a 48 hour public hanging, we don’t have any weapons in our politically correct society other than to delay whatever basic rights that our constitution may provide to them. It takes 10 years to execute a murderer in this country. This presumably is the same type of deal in process and Bush is correct by stalling the issue in the courts as those “innocent until proven guilty” detainees slowly rot in their cells. Hopefully, they will all go on an unlimited hunger strike .. We did get lucky with a few who recently received the 72 virgin bonus, but certainly we need more to see the light.. Bush definitely outsmarted the human rights crowd by playing the litigation game in reverse.
<
p>
Our military understands that eventually there will be some type of trial. But until such time I am grateful that the detainees are all off the street without the opportunity to blow up more people. In the interim, we will quietly hide the rest of their Muslim buddies away in rendition sites in parts unknown to enjoy the hospitality of our own Muslim buddies who will enjoy their company.
david says
what that last paragraph is supposed to mean. I trust it is not simply a slur implying that all Muslims are terrorists – that would be most unwelcome on this site, and a most unproductive way of talking about terrorism, since anyone with any sense at all recognizes that we need the Muslim world on our side. Perhaps RML would care to clarify.
rightmiddleleft says
other countries that will handle the Muslim terrorists in their own special way. If it implies that all Muslims are terrorists, I apologize for the confusion because it was not intention as such. Clearly, some of our closest allies in the war on terrorism are Muslims from Pakistan, Jordan , Saudi Arabia etc.
david says
rafi says
If you had read my post, you would have noticed I never even mentioned the Geneva Convention. My analysis was based completely on the Constitution — that legally-binding document written by the Founders that so many people seem to find inconvenient these days.
<
p>
Why are you afraid of putting the detainees through a trial? It sounds to me like your tirade is masking a fear that perhaps some of the prisoners aren’t actually guilty. Based on your apparent views towards all of the billion Muslims in the world, I guess you’d rather see the innocent ones rot than embarrass the Bush administration. If you think that reflects the Founders’ values, then we must be living in different dimensions.
rightmiddleleft says
only terrorists, especially those affiliated with Al Qaeda. Second, I agree with your analysis of the difference between the DOP and the constitution .
<
p>
But, I don’t believe terrorists are entitled to due process as long as they continue to commit the types of horrific acts we have experienced and read about. They are animals and are not entitled to the same rights as human beings . Put them in a cage and lock them away .
karen says
If you don’t get the reason for allowing all persons in the US due process, then I’m wondering if you’re actually a time traveler from the distant past.
<
p>
How many times have we seen the treacly but true moral of a TV episode, miniseries, movie, or book turn out to be: “It makes us just like them”? Or “It brings us down to their level”? Or the more complex “If we act as cruelly as they it lowers our moral standing in the world, and therefore our ability to influence others to find peaceful solutions”?
<
p>
If those don’t resonate, try “If we act as badly as them, we put all our soldiers and citizens in danger.”
<
p>
Please note that I am not saying the guilty shouldn’t be punished. But we do not have the moral, ethical, or legal ground to assume everyone is guilty and therefore punish first, ask questions later.
<
p>
bob-neer says
So far, all it looks like is that the Bush Administration is completely incompetent and just locked up a bunch of people — kids, people turned in for a bounty by their clan enemies in Afghanistan, pretty much any old person apparentlt — against whom they had no case — and can’t make a case — for PR value. Oops.
raj says
…hence the necessity for habeas corpus.
joes says
Is that you assume an individual is guilty without due process (“I don’t believe terrorists are entitled to due process”). If it is so clear one is guilty, why would you not advocate for a speedy trial?
sharoney says
Muslims BAD! BAD! BAD! Kill all Muslims!
<
p>
Love how you conflate “Muslims” with Al Qaeda, RML. Something I “would of” expected of you. I bet you think the signers of the Declaration would be proud of you.
<
p>
Pardon me while I throw up. And oh, Happy Independence Day.
farnkoff says
you tied up and helpless in a dungeon somewhere, and i promise I can get you to confess your involvement in 9/11. I’ll also get you to name some of your friends or acquaintances as collaborators and terrorists.
alexwill says
…you’re one of the few that don’t recognize the 14th amendment as valid (along with 13 aand 15) due to the sketchy reconstruction era ratifications
<
p>
<
p>
but yeah, arguments about citizenship are moot when it comes to equal protection: full political rights to citizens and full civil rights to all persons within the United States.
k1mgy says
Rafi writes:
<
p>
If our system is so great (and that’s less rhetorical than fact) then it ought to apply to all persons regardless their bloodline or geographical location of birth.
<
p>
I’d therefore support you reference to the use of “person” when describing constitutional protections. It does seem clear that the author could have used “citizen” here to make that distinction.
<
p>
Even if this was overlooked, why should we be so special? If our system is so great, let it work for all.
rightmiddleleft says
will want to edit this:
<
p>
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
david says
It’s a remarkable document, both timeless and also very much of its time (rather like the Constitution, ratified 13 years later and featuring the infamous fugitive slave clause). Sanitizing it would do both us and its authors a disservice.
sharoney says
why are you even treating this — person — seriously?
<
p>
I wish I had your patience with trolls.
bob-neer says
He’s following our rules. If you don’t like the comment, just ignore it, but don’t berate good old David for spending his Independence Day as he chooses.
david says
I bumped this post from last year, so a good number of the comments are a year old. RML hasn’t been seen much ’round these parts lately.
they says
Conform to Independence Day.
<
p>btw, the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments was a nice re-working worth reading too.
fieldscornerguy says
Oooh–are those the latest boogeymen? Where in Cambridge can I find them? You’d think they’d be on this blog, but alas–they’re obviously hiding! David posted the full text of the Declaration and then deleted many people’s efforts to edit it–it’s all a cunning attempt to make rml look silly! So nefarious.
karen says
He has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us,” first of all, and he has “endeavored to bring on” people who are merciless and “whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”
<
p>
And I’m just talking about Cheney and Rove.
joeltpatterson says
The Cambridge history teachers I know do not whitewash the history for their students. The racism toward Native Americans and Africans is included in the curriculum because it was there. As are the Red Scares and Anti-Immigrant eras of the USA.
<
p>An example of a whitewash would be something like MSNBC publishing
<
p>But then MSNBC does not provide the context of Jesse Helms’ broadcast in 1959 Raleigh, NC, when he defined “freedom” as keeping Jim Crow laws (like the Birmingham law forbidding whites and blacks to play checkers, cards, or dominoes together) and “tyranny” as federal agents protecting the civil rights of black people.
will says
David, it took me several scans to actually interpret correctly your “read it and weep” line. But now that I get it … you are so cool. I just wish you weren’t a lawyer, so I wouldn’t think it takes years of legal study to recognize the Declaration of Independence as an emotion-inspiring document (joking … slightly 🙂
<
p>
In fact, (cue corny music) this makes me proud to be an American, that we take our politics that seriously, and that we have a national symbol that invokes deep pride that is not a flag, or a national dance, or the crown of some old king, but a political document with actual ideas and bold statements about mankind. Some people weep over their religious documents … in America, we weep over our political documents. I’m not saying you can’t do both … but if I had to pick one or the other, I’d pick weeping over politics any day of the week. (And to carry on the theme of WWFFD, I think the Founding Fathers would too 🙂
lightiris says
Candidly, would that we had such balls today.
tblade says
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
<
p>
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
<
p>
Thank God we live in more progresive times and this is no longer an issue.
amberpaw says
And funds courts for reasons that do not relate to case load, efficiency, or the degree to which staffing reflects the most recent management and staffing study.
<
p>There is a reason a new court house was built in Belchertown in Rep. Petrolati’s district, and that reasons was not caseload.
<
p>The SJC’s budget was slashed after it sold Finneran’s office furniture, and it has still not recovered.
<
p>Stable funding for our judicial branch is needed to make our judges NOT “depedent on [the legislature’s] Will alone”…while judge’s are appointed to age 70, whether or not these same judges have law clerks, can buy paper, or have postage to have their orders mailed to litigants is solely under the power of the legislature. Just so you all know.
<
p>The foundation budget for the entire judicial branch was cut by 20% under Romney – and has never recovered. The so-called “retained revenue” in the budget is indigent court fees, other fees, etc. – the courts must act like debt collectors themselves to keep their lights on.
<
p>At least one other state – Wisconsin – found funding the courts on the back of indigent counsel fees and the like a conflict and unconstitutional. See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa…
<
p>Our indigent fees are THREE TIMES as high as the fee was in Wisconsin.
craig says
July 4…the day the American Colonists declared their independence from the British Empire and established the right “to alter or abolish” a government which was oppressive and corrupt.
<
p>
Happy Secession Day!
<
p>
http://PatriotsforLi…
raj says
which is not a derogatory term.
<
p>
As a side note, does anyone know who the idiot Patricia Stebbins is?
karen says
She wrote that for July 4th–and she thinks she’s a good American? She’s the perfect example of why Gravel’s “Democracy Initiative” would lead to fascism.
lightiris says
Now that woman is scary. Bless her little fascist heart, but it’ll be a cold day in her so-called hell when she and her ilk actually prevail in this neck of the woods.
k1mgy says
If someone might draft up a new bill of particulars, I’d be honored to sign my name.
<
p>
A better one, that will put things right, is available here:
<
p>
http://ni4d.us/
anthony says
….sooner return to rule under the English Crown.
karen says
The thought of the mob voting on legislation directly is frightening. Our legislators aren’t always educated enough to do that; I don’t think I am. And the mob certainly isn’t.
<
p>
That idea is incredibly unConstitutional and would most certainly mean tyrannical rule–remember when a teacher would ask your class to make up tests? Those were always much harder and more unfair than what the teacher would create.
raj says
…to easily vote on, not only legislation, but also state constitutional amendments.
<
p>
Remember the discussion here a few weeks ago about California’s Prop 13? Its limitations have made California virtually ungovernable.
mplo says
Hmmmm…a tad or two scary there.
mplo says
Anarchy would rule.
pat-progressive says
Over two hundred years ago a Declaration of Independence and a little later a Constitution were important. Times have changed as the people have become more educated and the people want more. Each group wants and needs their own special rights to make our society work. The ebb and tide of public needs are too important for static words. I can’t think of any politicial leader of a major party that is a “freedom lover”. We’ve gone beyond that.
<
p>
Our freedoms are based in how we can apply our political power.
michaelbate says
I’m in the midst of watching the excellent HBO series “John Adams.” I am finding it very moving.
<
p>Like many of you I am saddened and outraged at the manner in which our democratic values have been trampled by the current administration.
<
p>This is a day to remember that genuine American Patriotism does not consist of blind obedience to whoever is in power at the moment, but rather of devotion to the principles of democracy and freedom on which this nation was founded, which inspired the world, and which remain the greatest source of our strength.
katie-wallace says
President George Bush visits the home of Author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson for the first time ever to address newly sworn in citizens. Protesters call out interrupting the speech. George Bush tells the new citizens that “we believe in free speech in the United States of America.” As he says this security drag the protesters away. The news shows two security or secret service on each protester dragging them from under their arms. Were they arrested for their “free” speech? The news does not say.
<
p>Thomas Jefferson on the 182 anniversary of his death rolls over in his grave.
<
p>Vice President Dick Cheney stands on the deck of the U.S.S. Constitution in Boston Harbor. The local news makes no mention of the protesters who gathered nearby. The tyrant who dismantled the document this ship is named after is aboard, but Old Ironsides, does not crumble at the insult of his presence. The ship has endured for 211 years and gives hope that this country will recover from the last eight years of destruction.
<
p>What would John Adams who spent his life giving birth to this nation think to see Cheney in his home town?
lasthorseman says
written here are excellent most of them still center around the conventionalies of “left” “right” political ideas the ministry of propaganda has been feeding the public at large for years now.
<
p>http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar…
<
p>Much like the price of gas Google hits returned when using the keyword New World Order have been on the rise. I have seen it as high as 78 million.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar…
john-from-lowell says
In my opinion, it is our right, if not a sacred responsibility, to call upon our elected officials to champion a worthy cause.
And when they answer that call, we must stand with them, so they can continue doing the good work.
<
p>
amberpaw says
The closed sessions of the Juvenile Court have lead to severe violation of due process and, I submit, to the pursuit of happiness by interfering with privacy, liberty interests, and the rule of law itself. The reported 1:28 [unpublished, so not bound in law books, but citeable and in Lexis, Westlaw, and other legal data bases. This case was handled – or rather, mishandled, at the Boston Juvenile Court] Deb
<
p>NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel’s decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
<
p>COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
<
p>ADOPTION OF JERROLD (and a companion case [FN1]).
<
p>08-P-867
<
p>MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
<
p>The mother and father appeal from decrees finding them unfit and dispensing with their consent to adoption of their children. The mother and father also appeal the judge’s decision not to allow postadoption contact other than one birthday card to each child per year. They argue, on appeal, that the judge’s findings indicate that close attention was not paid to the evidence, that findings were erroneous, and that the Department of Children and Families (department) failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. We vacate the decrees in so far as they terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights and affirm the adjudications that the parents are unfit and the children in need of care and protection.
<
p>The oldest child, Jerrold, was born in February, 2005. He was born without complications. The mother and father either lived with friends or moved from hotel to hotel for the next ten months. At the end of January, 2006, a G. L. c. 119, § 51A, report was filed on behalf of Jerrold alleging neglect. The maternal grandmother filed for guardianship in the Probate Court. The judge returned custody of the child to the mother and father contingent upon their submitting to various drug tests. The department created a service plan for the time period of February to April, 2006. The service plan required drug evaluations, drug testing, and sobriety. The mother and father submitted to a hair follicle test in early April and both tested positive for cocaine. On April 12, 2006, the department filed a petition for care and protection and obtained custody of Jerrold. The department developed another service plan to cover the time period from April to October, 2006. This second service plan basically contained the same requirements as the first service plan. The plan’s goal was ‘to stabilize intact family.’ The department, however, filed a notice of intent in July of 2006 requesting that the mother’s and father’s parental rights be terminated.
<
p>On December 28, 2006, the mother gave birth to her second child with the father. The child, Claire, was born testing positive for cocaine. Within a few days, she was added to the petition to terminate parental rights and was transferred to the custody of the department. Trial commenced on October 18, 2007, and concluded on December 6, 2007, after a total of six trial days.
<
p>It is appropriate to preface our analysis of this troubling case with a brief survey of the appropriate case law. The department must prove, and upon this proof, a judge must find, that the parent is not currently fit to further the best interests and welfare of the child. Custody of a Minor, 389 Mass. 755, 766 (1983). Adoption of Ramona, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 260, 262-263 (2004). In this bifurcated analysis, a judge must first determine that the parent is fit or unfit. Adoption of Nancy, 443 Mass. 512, 515 (2005). If a judge determines that a parent is unfit, she must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Adoption of Ramona, supra at 265. While the one usually follows the other, it does not necessarily do so. See Adoption of Carlos, 413 Mass. 339, 350 (1992). The determination of current parental unfitness is not focused upon whether the parent is a good one; the determination is whether the parent is so bad as to place the child at serious risk from abuse, neglect, or other activity harmful to the child. Adoption of Leland, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 580, 584 (2006). ‘Parental unfitness means . . . more than ineptitude, handicap, character flaw, conviction of a crime, unusual life style or inability to do as good a job as the child’s foster parent. . . . ‘[P]arental unfitness’ means ‘grievous shortcomings or handicaps’ that put the child’s welfare much at hazard.’ Ibid., quoting from Adoption of Katharine, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 28, (1997).
<
p>At the same time, however, a judge need not wait for disaster to happen, and she may rely upon past patterns of parental neglect and misconduct in her determination of current and future fitness. Custody of a Minor (No. 1), 377 Mass. 876, 882-883 (1979). Care & Protection of Stephen, 401 Mass. 144, 152 (1987). Adoption of George, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 265, 268 (1989). Adoption of Jenna, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 739, 744 (1992).
<
p>The parents here certainly have a well-documented history of drug use and this drug use has adversely affected the welfare of their children. They also, however, at the time of trial, had made significant progress in admitting and addressing their drug abuse. Our analysis must focus on whether the judge fairly considered the evidence of this progress and ultimately whether the parents’ past behavior was a more accurate prognosis of future behavior such that parental rights should be terminated. See Adoption of Carlos, supra.
<
p>From the outset, it is troubling that the testimony of the mother’s and father’s witnesses are consistently credited by the judge when their testimony is negative in regard to the parents and consistently discredited when their testimony is positive. This pattern was applied to Jessica Greenwood-O’Brien, Ph.D., Nilda Torres from Chelsea ASAP, and Kelly Ann Jordan from Project Cope.
<
p>O’Brien has earned a master’s degree in psychology and a Ph.D. degree in clinical community psychology forensic specialty. She has been a clinical forensic psychologist since 1993. The judge determined that O’Brien’s inability, or failure, to access medical records and collaterals impacted negatively on the credibility of her assessments of the mother. F. 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 41, and 43. However, notwithstanding these assessments of the psychologists’s credibility, the judge finds her opinions regarding the mother’s trauma history and mental health issues to be credible, but only ‘to the extent that they explain foreseeable problems that a parent with mental health issues would have to overcome in attempting to parent.’ F. 36. Similarly, O’Brien’s testimony is credited when she opines that the mother has failed to adequately address substance abuse treatment and trauma issues. Her testimony is again credited when she testified that the mother has not followed the recommendation that her treatment must include a psychiatrist to prescribe and monitor her medications. F. 45. These findings of credibility, however, are immediately preceded by the contradictory finding that O’Brien is incapable of making a ‘complete assessment of [the] [m]other’s significant mental impediments and substance abuse issues.’ F. 43.
<
p>Particularly troubling also is the judge’s finding discrediting O’Brien’s testimony that the ‘[m]other and father have a good relationship, and that [the] [f]ather provides emotional and financial stability to [the] [m]other.’ This and similar testimony is discredited because O’Brien ‘was not aware that [the] [m]other was subject to domestic violence by the hands of [the] father’ and as a result, had ‘incomplete’ knowledge of the relationship between the mother and father. F. 19 &
20. The problem is that there is virtually no evidence of domestic violence in the record before us. The judge found that the ‘mother informed . . . Torres of domestic violence, arguments and physical and/or verbal fights that occurred between her and [the] father.’ F. 55. [FN2]
<
p>Not only do the judge’s findings concerning domestic violence appear to have little basis in the evidence presented, but the erroneous findings formed the basis for a number of other findings and conclusions of law.
<
p>Torres is a licensed social worker with a master’s degree in education and has been a substance abuse counselor for thirty-two years. The judge again credits her negative observations concerning the mother, such as the mother’s not having dealt with her mental health issues. F.60. However, the judge discredited Torres’s testimony that the mother is successfully dealing with her substance abuse issues. F. 61. Similarly, the judge found that the positive testimony regarding the mother’s response to substance abuse treatment from Jordan, and as previously noted, a substance abuse counselor and the mother’s case manager at Project Cope, was not credible and declared her a hostile witness. F. 62. Ultimately, the judge determined that Jordan’s record keeping was so lax that her testimony that the mother did ‘well in treatment’ was not creditable. F. 71.
<
p>The father received similar treatment from the judge. In finding 98, the judge determined that the father ‘was too wrapped up in drugs and was afraid what would happen to [Jerrold] if he left him with [the] [m]other.’ [FN3] This is not what the father said and certainly not what he meant. His attempted sincere expression of concern for not leaving his family alone to financially fend for themselves is turned into a criticism of the mother’s ability to parent.
<
p>The judge, in a similar vein, also found that the father had denied having a history of mental health issues, but that CAB Health and Recovery Services rated him as having extreme mental health problems in a client assessment. F. 100. Actually, the client assessment rated the father as being at low risk for self-harm, having ‘no real problem’ as to mental health issues and having a ‘slight problem (treatment probably not indicated)’ for medical issues. A. 381, 386. The father did state that he was depressed and experienced suicidal ideation when he lost his children but was no longer depressed nor experienced suicidal ideation. This observation was part of the client assessment completed on February 1, 2007.
<
p>A judge cannot ignore ‘troublesome facts.’ Adoption of Stuart, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 382 (1995). Conclusions of law 6, 8, 13, and 14 are based on the judge’s determination that the mother was inconsistent in her substance abuse treatment, but this conclusion was only possible because the judge discredited the testimony of every professional involved in the assessment or treatment of the mother. Conclusion of law 13 states that the mother is at a high risk for relapse. There is no expert testimony in the record however to support this conclusion. In fact, all the expert testimony that the judge discredited supported the opposite conclusion. Other findings and conclusions suffer from a similar lack of record support, misrepresentation, or wholesale disregard for evidence favorable to the mother or father.
<
p>The judge diminishes or ignores evidence that, at the time of trial, the father had eleven months of continuous sobriety. He attended AA. He had an apartment, through the support of a friend. The department had no concerns about his sobriety and noted his compliance with the service plan. The father also admitted his failed treatments, but testified that he has turned away from that life style. A. 1321.
<
p>Both the mother and father argue that the department failed to make reasonable efforts to keep the family together. Even in cases where the department may not have fulfilled its legal obligations, see Petition of the Dept. of Pub. Welfare to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 376 Mass. 252, 268-269 (1978), and 110 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.01 (1993), such determination would rarely be dispositive of a case on appeal. Sadly, at this state of the proceedings, the harm is usually irreparable. See G. L. c. 18B, § 3(A)(1), as in effect prior to St. 2008, c. 176, § 26. [FN4]
<
p>Here, on April 12, 2006, the department filed a petition for care and petition. On July 13, 2006, just two months later, the department filed a notice of intent to terminate parental rights. Claire was born at the end of December, 2006, and was immediately added to the petition seeking to terminate parental rights. The service plans before and after the department filed its notice of intent to terminate parental rights continued to include a stated goal of maintaining an intact family.
<
p>The service plans themselves put burdens on the family while offering little or no assistance to achieve that goal. The department argues that its reasonable efforts must be met with cooperation by the parents. Adoption of Mario, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 767, 774 (1997). This is a legitimate position the department has taken, but not beyond a reasonable limit. When, for example, the father became sober after a lengthy inpatient detoxification and treatment and was in compliance with his service plan, the department offered no assistance to the father nor attempted to keep the family intact. The department offered no help in assisting the father to understand his son’s special needs, yet the judge held this lack of understanding against the father. See F. 152.
<
p>A significant number of the judge’s conclusions of law are predicated on issues, such as homelessness, that the department could have assisted with, but did not, or on the implications of findings that are themselves erroneous, such as the finding concerning domestic violence.
<
p>It is difficult to reach a clear conclusion of parental unfitness such that termination would be in the children’s best interests on the record before us. The evidence does not appear to have been treated fairly and difficult facts do not appear to have been fairly considered. It is clear that close attention has not been paid to the evidence. This is certainly not to say that these parents are fit. In fact, we do not know whether these parents are fit or unfit to further the welfare and best interests of the children, although this passage of time which has occurred will provide the opportunity to make a clear and final determination of that question.
<
p>The decrees in so far as they terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights are vacated. The adjudications that the parents are unfit and the children are in need of care and protection are affirmed. The matter is remanded to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings before a different judge.
<
p>So ordered.
<
p>By the Court (Trainor, Katzmann & Vuono, JJ.),
Entered: June 29, 2009.
FN1. Adoption of Claire. The children’s names are pseudonyms.
<
p> FN2. Finding 55 is apparently based on the following testimony of Torres being questioned by department counsel:
<
p> Q. ‘You had a group meeting on August 8, 2007,in which it says, ‘Women were able to share stories of domestic violence and their experiences with perpetrators.’ Did [the mother] tell you about any domestic violence that she had between her and [the father]?’
<
p> A. ‘She has in several situations yes.’
<
p> Q. ‘Several situations with who?’
<
p> A. ‘With me. Several conversations — several sessions.’
<
p> Q. ‘About domestic violence?’
<
p> A. ‘Yes.’
<
p> Q. ‘With [the father]?’
<
p> A. ‘Yes.’
<
p> Q. ‘And what did she tell about that domestic violence?’
<
p> A. ‘That there has been domestic violence, but not, you know, like with details and stuff.’
<
p> . . .
<
p> Q. ‘Did you ask her for details?’
<
p> A.
‘You know, the domestic violence can be like arguing, it can be like screaming, can be like, you know, but it’s not something that she talked to me 24/7 about it.’
<
p> Q. ‘Did you ask her about any details of the domestic violence?’
<
p> A. ‘Whenever she talks about — yes.’
<
p> Q. ‘And what were the details about it’s not in this record. What were the details that she told you about the domestic violence?’
<
p> . . .
<
p> A. ‘Arguments, fights, most of the time [the mother] focused on her substance abuse treatment program, and even though there has been situations, you know, what mostly she talk about was arguments screaming, and stuff like that, you know, but not in detail, not in detail.’
<
p> Q. ‘Any physical violence between the two of them?’
<
p> A. ‘There might have been, but I’m not aware.’
<
p> Tr. Vol. 2: 268-269
<
p> (Cross examination confirmed that there was no discussion involving physical violence. Tr. 2: 294-295.)
<
p> The question of domestic violence was also posed to Jordan, a substance abuse counselor and the mother’s case manager. Tr. 2:315. She testified that she knew nothing about domestic violence and only that they had ‘fights as [any] normal couples would have. Tr. 2:333
<
p> FN3. The father’s actual testimony upon which the finding is based is as follows:
<
p> Q. (Fathers’ attorney) ‘[W]hy didn’t you get back into rehab? Are you saying that that’s something — ‘
<
p> A. (Father) ‘I was still too wrapped up in drugs, and I was worried about if I left [Jerrold] and his mother what would happen to them? Where would they go? I mean, I was the bread winner. I was, you know, affording the hotels and where we were going and where we were staying at the time,
<
p> food. I was worried what would happen to them if I would go in, and I was too wrapped up in drugs to go in at the time.’ Tr. vol. 4:466.
<
p> FN4. The import of the 2008 amendment is the same as the prior version of the statute.
amberpaw says
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/v…
hlpeary says
Today in Danvers (as in many towns in the Commonwealth) the Declaration of Independence will be read on the Colonial Training Field by 56 citizens (one for each original Signer), each taking a part…they represent every part of the community…old, young, men and women of every background and description…they represent a whole community…i hope they will say the last line in unison…”And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
<
p>The “pledging to each other” part often take a beating but we keep trying.
christopher says
…I really appreciate that you repost this each year. With all the political back-and-forth, sometimes rather intense, it’s good to be reminded why it is and how it came to be that we are able to have these discussions and ultimately govern ourselves.
howland-lew-natick says
To the list of grievance could we add today, “Falsely offering ‘Hope & Change’ from the previous tyrant.”; “Supporting the desires of the oligarchs over the needs of the citizenry.”; “Promoting murder of citizens and others at the whim and whimsy of himself or staff.”; “Planning with cohorts to stifle the little public forum of dissension left the citizenry by closing the Internet upon his own determination.”
<
p>I fear next year’s listing, if there will be a next year.