I attended the last hearing of the House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect yesterday. So did Haleigh Poutre’s grandmother. I listened to Sandra L. Sudyka talk about Haleigh eating scrambled eggs, writing her name, and talking, and cried as she said that the worst part of DSS banning her from visiting her grand daughter is that she is afraid Haleigh will think she does not care.
Chairman Rogers said his prayers would be with her, and Sandra Sudyka sobbed quietly.
[Springfield Republican Story http://www.masslive….
ssf?/base/news-1/1170841068117560.xml&coll=1]
Sudyka said the child seemed to be improving and responding when she met with her and her biological mother, Allison L. Avrett, 30, of Agawam.
“I wish I could get my visits back,” Sudyka told legislators on a panel that conducted its final public hearing yesterday on the condition of the state’s system for protecting abused and neglected children. “I know you can’t do that, but I don’t want this to happen to other families.”
What possible reason, other than to hide their own faults and failings, could there be to prevent visits from loved ones and to isolate a young child who had been abused amoung strangers in rehab??
http://www.masslive….
<
p>
I think I cut off the lnk funny – sorry!
If she was, DSS might have an embargo against her for that reason.
<
p>
Also – is she willing to visit without her daughter, Hailey’s mother, who was almost certainly involved?
<
p>
Has she contacted her OWN state rep.? It is common for Reps. to work with local DSS offices to facilitate these things.
<
p>
Also – if she is there testifying against DSS (and I’m not saying she shouldn’t do so) – is that why DSS might be leery of having her visit?
Most — if not all –of your comments had to do not with Haleigh’s best interest is, but rather why DSS might circle its wagons.
<
p>
Wnat I know about the case comes solely from what was in the public press reports. If I had been counsel, I would not be able to speak at all because the impoundment rules are so severe – and in my opinion, do not protect children but rather “cover the sins” of the child welfare industry.
<
p>
So, here goes:
<
p>
1. Haleigh’s mother was 16 when Haleigh was born. DSS accused her then-boyfriend of doing something negligent or abusive [what is not known to me] and pressured her to surrender her parental rights in favor of her sister.
<
p>
2. Haleigh’s mother is named Alison Avrett, is married, and raising three children with her husband and not even a “whiff” of abuse, neglect, or anything illegal or even unusual. The problematic boyfriend is long gone.
<
p>
3. There is nothing in any of the published reports that explains why DSS pressured Alison Avrett to sign her rights away to Haleigh to the Poutre famly [sister and husband].
<
p>
4. However, under the Adoption and Safe Families Act [ASFA], any termnation of rights provides a bounty to the state; any reunification does not.
<
p>
5. In my direct and every day experience, including Commissioner Spence’s testimony on 1/26/07 about this very case, [Haleigh’s case] DSS never, ever admits to doing anything wrong, making a mistake, or choosing the wrong goal.
<
p>
6. No judge can make decisions about placement of a child, once that child is in DSS custody, using the best interest standard used to determine custody of a child in a divorce or paternity suit; child custody decisions are considered to be ministerial executive decisions only subject to “abuse of discretion” which is an very narrow standard.
<
p>
Not even DSS has ever said or any press story indicated anything where the maternal grandmother had ever injured or neglected any child, or anything like that.
<
p>
I see it as the secretive, never admit we are wrong, controlling, welfare-industry, pro adoption agenda. {Now THAT is a mouthful]
I tried to supply some reasons. As you say, they have more to do with protecting DSS than the girl, but that doesn’t mean they are not real reasons.
<
p>
Like you, I know nothing about this except what was in the papers. I still suggest that the grandmother contact her State Rep. and ask that s/he contact DSS for a visit for her.
After all, I was there 2/6/07 for the grandmother’s testimony.
<
p>
Asking your representative does NOT help with DSS. I have represented both parents and children in these cases.
<
p>
DSS currently has a culture of secrecy, and never no matter the cost admits it has erred.
<
p>
DSS has demonstrated this “take no hostages” approach over and over; the first time I ran into DSS and its “circle the wagons and protect our own” culture was the case I took pro bono to the SJC that became Care and Protection of Vivian. DSS was told by the SJC that whether it liked it or not, federal constitutional law did apply [DSS had argued that federal thuis law did not apply to DSS cases such as mine because DSS cases are not “custody” cases but instances of police power and public safety]. Right.
<
p>
Subsequently, I took the needed steps to be certified so that I could represent indigent people who had the over whleming power of DSS controlling their lives iun secrecy, while also caring for my own young children and maintaining a private practice to subsidize my representation of indigents for the pittance that constitutes the state rate.
<
p>
The secrecy according DSS cases protects only DSS. The statute is inadequate, there is no over sight by courts to speak of, and the agency is out of control.
<
p>
case law has held that the courts themselves, whether juvenile, district, or probate may not order DSS to provide services based on the best interest of the child, for either the child or the parent. See Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602, 604 (1995). In Isaac, the following question was certified to the Supreme Judicial Court by a single justice: “Does a judge sitting in a juvenile session have authority to order the Department of Social Services, over its objection, to provide a specific placement and a specific staffing level for a child who has been adjudicated to be in need of care and protection and committed to the Department’s (other than temporary) custody pursuant to G.L. c. 119, §26?”
<
p>
The Supreme Judicial Court responded: “We answer the question “No.”. The Supreme Judicial Court goes further, and states: The relevant provisions of G.L. c. 119, however, contain no general grant of authority to a judge to enter an order intended to be in a child’s best interests. Isaac, Id. at 609.
<
p>
In Isaac, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the only standard of review available to any child or parent or guardian over the actions taken, or not taken, by DSS is that of error of law or abuse of discretion, which is measured by the “arbitrary or capricious test”. Id. 610. From the further reasoning of the Isaac court, this result appears mandated by the “finite annual appropriation”. provided to DSS. Id. at 611. The results of Isaac have been a social disaster, denying judges any real oversight as to the placement and service provision decisions of DSS.