the family defendervivek sankaran university of michigan law school robert schwartz juvenile law...

1 Vol.4,No.2

IN THIS SPECIAL DOUBLE ISSUE:

Family Defense Briefs See page 2

Message from the Executive Director See page 16

FEATURES:

United States Supreme Court to Decide on Child Protection Inves-tigators’ Authority to Interrogate Children in Schools See page 1

End in Sight for 13-Year-Old Federal Case Concerning Rights of Individu-als Who Work with Children See page 1

Family Vindicated After Medical and Legal Ordeal See page 3

Our Son Has Been Abused and Ne-glected By the System That Ignores His Mental Health Needs See page 6

Can You Believe This? See page 7

Meet Dr. Christopher Sullivan, 2010 Family Defender See page 8

MPEEC Program Data Shows Inno-cent Families Are Being Harmed See page 12

please turn to page 14


The Family DefenderADVOCATING FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES TOGETHER

United States Supreme Court to Decide on Child Protection Investigators’ Authority

to Interrogate Children in SchoolsCourt to Review If Investigators Need a Warrant, Court

Order, Exigent Circumstances or Parental ConsentVol. 4 Fall 2010/Winter 2011

Vol.4,No.2

A Child Protection Watchdog Group

On October 12, 2010, the United States Su-preme Court decided to hear Camreta/Alford v. Greene,thefirstcaseithastakeninovertwodecades that directly relates to childprotectioninvestigations. The Supreme Court granted therequests of the two defendants (Bob Camretais a Bend, Oregon child protection investiga-tor and JamesAlford is a sheriff) to review theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision thatwentpartially against them.TheNinthCircuit

had held that the defendants’ two-hour ques-tioning of 9-year-old plaintiff S.G. about pos-siblesexualabusebyherfatherwasanunlawful“seizure”inviolationoftheFourthAmendment.Butbecausethelawwasnot“clearlyestablished,”the Ninth Circuit granted the two defendants“qualifiedimmunity,”meaningthatnodamageswereawardedtotheplaintiffchildorhermother,whose consent regardingS.G.’s in-school inter-

Dupuy v. McEwenistheFamilyDefenseCenter’songoingfederalclassactionsuitthatestablishedthedueprocess rightsof individualswhoworkwith childrenwhen they are targeted inDCFSinvestigations.Dupuy I (thepartofthecaseonbehalfofthesechildcareemployees)wasfinallyresolved in2007after tenyearsofactive litiga-tion, with commitments that DCFS’s perfor-mancewouldbe subject to twoyearsofmoni-toring.In2007,theFamilyDefenseCenteralsotook over lead responsibility for insuring thatDCFSliveduptoitscommitments.(Dupuy II,whichtheFDClostintheCourtofAppeals,con-cernedsafetyplansissuedunderthreatofhavinga child taken into foster care.)After themoni-tor’s reportswerefiledand individualclientsoftheFDCpresentedinformationthatcalledintoquestiontheextentofcompliancewithDCFS’scommitments,in2009theFDCfiledamotioninfederalcourtcomplainingasfollows:

• DCFS did not provide notice of the basisforitsindicateddecisionsaspromisedinthe2007agreement;

• DCFS denied special expedited processes toindividualswhoworkedwithchildreniftheywere union members, not the primary in-comeearnerintheirhouseholdorunlicensedcaregivers (note: in Illinois,many child caregiversarelicense-exemptandcanworkwith-outalicense).

• DCFStreatedacceptanceofhearingdatesitsjudgesofferedasa“waiver”oftherighttoaspeedyhearingwithin35or90days.

• DCFScontinuednottotrainitsinvestigatorsadequately as to their duties to gather andconsiderexculpatoryevidence.

Following thefilingof thismotionand thefil-

End in Sight for 13-Year-Old Federal CaseConcerning Rights of Individuals Who Work

with Children

TheFamilyDefender 2

FAMILY DEFENSE BRIEFS

A Child Protection Watchdog Group

Board of DirectorsMichaelO’ConnorPresident

LouisFogel,TreasurerTiShaundaMcPherson,Secretary

MichaelT.BrodyLaverneHorton

ScottKramerMarcoLopez

HeleneSnyder

National Honorary AdvisorsAnnetteAppell

Washington U. Law School, MOMartyBeyer

Clinical Psychologist, ORSusanBrooks

Drexel University Law School, PAIraA.Burnim

Bazelon Ctr for Mental Health Law, DCMartinGuggenheim

New York University School of LawCarolynKubitschek

Lansner & Kubitschek, NYDavidLansner

Lansner & Kubitschek, NYDorothyRoberts

Northwestern Univ. School of Law, ILVivekSankaran

University of Michigan Law SchoolRobertSchwartz

Juvenile Law Center, PA MichaelWald

Stanford Law School , CAAnitaWeinberg

Loyola Law School, IL(Affiliation is for identification only.)

Family Defense Center StaffDianeL.Redleaf,Executive Director

MelissaStaas,Staff AttorneyAllegraCiraFischer,Staff Attorney

ShereeMoratto,Development/Operations Coordinator

MatthewStreit,Administrator

FAMILY DEFENSE CENTER STARTS PLANNING SECOND NATIONAL REUNIFICATION DAY CELEBRATION

In2009, theFamilyDefenseCenteradoptedthe idea promoted by the American Bar As-sociation’sParentRepresentationProject: cel-ebratingfamilieswhosuccessfullyreuniteafterchild protection interven-tion. Conceived as both acelebrationandanadvocacyevent to highlight the chal-lengesfamiliesfaceandtheirneedsforsupportivepoliciesand practices to help themsucceed,theFamilyDefenseCenter’s first National Re-unification Day event in-cluded a keynote speechbynationally-renowned childandfamilyadvocateandau-thorKarlDennis,panelsofparents, social workers andlawyers, singing, entertain-mentforchildren,andevena birthday party for Dono-vanR.,whohadturnedtwoonthedayofthecelebration.The FDC’s very successfulJune 19 event was the solesuch event—of over dozenNational Reunification Dayevents in other states—thatwas sponsored by a publicinterest advocacy organiza-tionratherthanachildwel-fareagencyorcourtsystem.

This year, the ABA is sug-gestingthatNationalReuni-ficationDayshouldbeheldon any day between Moth-er’sDayandFather’sDay.Followingthislead,theFDCplanstohostitssecondNationalRe-unificationDayeventonMay21(locationtobeannounced).Thisyear,wehopetoexpandour sponsors and include even more familiesandotherswhohelpedthemtoachievereuni-fication.

Second Annual Event Exceeds Expectations: Massive Amounts of Fun Reported In Midst of Meaningful Program

OnSeptember27,2010,theFamilyDefenseCenter hosted its Second Annual BenefitEvent.Ourgoal:toraise$50,000and,atthesametime,toeducateourcommunityontheimportanceofmedical/legaldefenseofwrong-lyaccusedfamiliesinthechildwelfaresystem.

Wesucceededfarbeyondourexpectationson

bothcounts.ThestoriesofFDCfamiliesfight-ing misguided medical claims of abuse andneedingmedicalexpertsaswellaslegalexpertsto restore their family lives were so powerfulthattherewerefewdryeyesinouraudience—oronthepodium—whenco-chairsLauraand

BrianTimmelpresentedDr.ChristopherSul-livanwith thisyear’sFamilyDefenderAwardforhiscourageousdefenseoffamilieswhohadbeen accused, wrongly, of causing their chil-dren’s fractures. (See Dr. Christopher Sullivan’s biography, reprinted from our event program book at p. 8).

The event netted nearly $10,000 more thanour goal as well, thanks to the outstandingworkbytheTimmelsandco-chairJulieBauer,silentauctioncoordinatorMaryBroderickandlive auctioneer Sal Cicero. Artist AlejandroRomero and musicians Harmony Hope andHealing and Brass Friends made the eveningbeautifulaswellasfestive.Whowouldbelievethataprogramsoseriousandimportantcouldalsobesomuchfun?

The Family Defender is a publication of the Family Defense Center

Editor-in-Chief DianeL.RedleafContributors MelissaStaas, AllegraCiraFischer, MaryKellyBroderick,ToniHoy,KathyMandell(design/layoutforDr.SullivanBiography)Layout CompleteCommunications,Inc.

Also see us at www.familydefensecenter.net.

Samantha and two-year-old Donovan R. celebrate.

3 Vol.4,No.2


It’s easy to support theFamilyDefenseCenter! You candonateonline throughour “Click andPledge”System, available atwww.familydefensecenter.net.Wecannowacceptdonationsofappreciatedstocktoo!PleasecallDevelopmentCoordinatorShereeMorattoat312-356-3202x27ifyouwishtoarrangeforsuchadonationorgiveadonationbycreditcardoverthephone.Weacceptgoodold-fashionedcheckstooatourofficesat725S.Wells#702,Chicago,IL,60607.Allcontributionsaregratefullyacknowledged,andcon-tributionsof$100ormorearelistedinourannualreport.

Please Give to the Family Defense Center

By Melissa Staas (with assistance of Valerie and Jim C.1)

Sixmonthsago,ValerieandJimC.neverimaginedthatinordertofightbackagainstabaselessclaimofchildabuse,theywould

needtoflytheirbabygirl,Amelia,toachildren’shospitalhalf-wayacrossthecountry,obtainaslewofmedicalopinionsfromatleastahalf-dozensubspecialists,andhireattorneys inordertoexercisetheir right to live together as a family. One fatefulday thispastJuly,however,changedforevertheirfeelingsofsecurityasparents,forcing them into thenearly impossiblepositionofproving theirinnocencewhilealsostrugglingtocarefortheirdaughterwhohadcomplexmedicalneeds.

AmeliaisthecenterofValerieandJim’shomeandfamilylife.Thecouple traverseda long journeytowardsparenthood—inNovem-ber, 2009, Amelia’s arrival was enthusiastically celebrated by thesupportive and large extended families on both sides. However,fromthetimeofherdifficultandtraumaticdelivery,itwasapparentthatAmeliafacedmanymedicalchallenges.

AmeliawasbornsixweeksprematurelyfollowingValerie’s30hoursoflabor,anemergencycesareanprocedureduetofetaldistress,sig-nificantandnear-fatalhemorrhagingtoValerie,andanunusuallylongstayintheneonatalintensivecareunitforAmelia(19days),duringwhichtimethetinynewbornbabywasintubated.DuringtheweeksandmonthsfollowingAmelia’sdelivery,herparentsalsolearnedthatAmeliahadasmallholeinherheart(which,thespe-cialistshoped,wouldeventuallyresolveonitsown),hydronephrosis(structural abnormalities in the renal system, which would likelyrequire eventual surgical intervention), and abnormal eye move-ments. Throughout all of these developments, Amelia’s parentsplacedhermedicalneedsasprioritynumberoneintheirlives—dil-igentlyfollowing-upwithallmedicalproviders,attendingcountlessappointments,andeducatingthemselvesonAmelia’sconditions.

Oddlyenough, itwasa seriesofdecisions related toAmelia’seyemovements that brought the child protection system into JimandValerie’sfamilylife.Amelia’seyeswerestillcrossingatagesixmonths,aredflagforapossibleneedforaneyeexam,sotheC.’stookAmelia to anophthalmologistwhoprescribed eyeglasses forthenewborn.WantingamorethoroughassessmentofthepotentialcausesforAmelia’seyemovements,however,ValerieandJimsoughta second opinion from a pediatric ophthalmologist at Children’sMemorial Hospital in Chicago. In order to rule-out a potentialneurological explanation, including a possible tumor accountingfor the eye movements, on July 2, 2010, this doctor ordered anMRIofAmelia’sbrain.WhenValerieandJimhadnotheardfromtheophthalmologistwiththeresults,Valeriecontactedthedoctor

1 Names in this article have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the family.

onJuly6.TheophthalmologiststatedthathehadjustreceivedtheresultsandthatAmeliahadasmallbleedonherbrain—asubduralhematoma—andthatValerieandJimshouldcomeintothehospi-talthenextdaytomeetwithhiminperson.Eventhoughthefam-ilywasscheduledtohaveAmeliaseenthefollowingMonday,theophthalmologist toldValerie that “child abuse” was the “numberonereasonforasubduralhematoma”andsheneededtocomeinthenextdaytomeetwithasocialworkerandhaveAmeliagetafullskeletalsurvey.ValerieandJimweredumbfounded.

WhenValerieandJimarrivedatChildren’sMemorialthenextday,July7,itwasnotforaneurologyteamconsultation.(Thankfully,ValerieandJimlater learnedthataneurologicalcausefortheeyemovements was ruled out.) They met with the child protectionteamconsistingofasocialworkerandChildren’sMemorial’s leadchildprotectionpediatrician. Entirely incidental to and separatefromthereviewoftheMRIforpurposesofrulingoutaneurologi-calreasonfortheeyemovements,theneuro-radiologistdetectedasmall,oldsubduralhemorrhageontherightsideofAmelia’sbrain.Amelia had, however, never exhibited any signs of neurologicaldistress that isoftenassociatedwithableed inthebrain(suchasseizures, breathing problems, or major mood changes), and theyhadnoideaastohowthehemorrhagecouldhaveoccurred.How-ever,insteadofprovidinganymedicalinformationaboutpotentialcausesof these typesofhemorrhages to theveryworriedparents,the child protection team at Children’s Memorial proceeded toseparatelyinterrogatetheparentsinanincreasinglyaccusatoryandhostile atmosphere. The child protection team immediately pre-sumedthatAmeliahadbeenabusedanddemandedthattheparentsproveotherwise.

Duringtheirinterrogationoftheparents,thechildprotectiondoc-torand thehospital socialworkerquestionedbothparentsaboutwhetherAmeliahadsustainedanyaccidentalfallsordrops.Valerienoted that there were a few occasions when Amelia bumped herheadwhile sittingwith someoneat the table.Valerie alsoofferedthat when Amelia rolled, she tended to move head-first so thatsometimesherheadwouldmakecontactwiththefloorbeforeherbodycouldcomplete the roll. Bothparentsnoted the traumaticlaboranddelivery.Whenthechildprotectionteamflatlyrejectedany of these explanations as potential causes, the parents turnedto thesemedicalprofessionals for guidance and education. Theyaskedthedoctorwhatcouldhavecausedtheirbabygirltohavethishemorrhage.

Theheadofthechildprotectionteam’sresponsewasimmediateandprosecutorial:“Sometimes,people just snapandshake thebaby!”Notonepossiblemedicalexplanationwasofferedtothem,thoughtheC’slaterlearnedtherearemanysuchpossibilities.

Family Vindicated After Medical and Legal Ordeal

TheFamilyDefender 4

ValerieandJimcouldnotbelieve the twilightzone theyhad justentered.Thechiefchildabusedoctorhadneverbeforemettheirfamily,knewnexttonothingaboutAmelia’sextensivemedicalhis-tory,and,atthatpoint,hadneverevenexaminedAmelia.Never-theless,thedoctorwasaccusingthemofintentionallyharmingtheirowndaughterandhadthepowerandauthoritytoteartheirfamilyapart.Atthedoctor’sdirection,DCFSimmediatelywascontacted.AndasJimandValerieweresoontolearn,herunder-informedandseeminglyflippantaccusationwouldprofoundlyimpacttheirfun-damentalrightsasparents.

Although Amelia was not in need of any medical attention, JimandValerie readily agreed to admit her into the hospital so thatvarioustestscouldberun,includingaskeletalsurvey(whichcamebacknegative for anyunexplained injury) andother tests relatedtoAmelia’shydronephrosisorpossibleneuroblastoma. ThesamedayasAmelia’sadmission,aDCFSinvestigatorshowedupatthehospitalandtoldJimandValeriethattheyneededtosigna“safetyplan”prohibitingthemfromanyunsupervisedcontactwithAmeliaandprohibitingthemfromspendingthenightinthesamelocationasAmelia. This investigatortoldJimandValeriethat if theydidnotsigntheplan,Ameliawouldbetakenintoprotectivecustody.

On July 8, Valerie asked to see the pediatric neurologist so thatshecouldaskhimdirectly abouthis thoughts regarding the sub-duralhematoma,butherrequestswerecontinuouslysidestepped.OnJuly9,thoughAmeliawasreadyfordischarge,Valerierefusedto leave thehospitaluntil shewasgivenanopportunity to speakwiththepediatricneurologist.Finally,thechiefpediatricneurolo-gistatChildren’sMemorialdidmeetwithValerieandgave someverysurprisingnews:theMRIalsorevealedthatAmeliahadbenignenlargementsofhersubarachnoidspaces.Itisawell-acceptedmedi-calpremisethatchildrenwiththesebenignenlargementsaremorevulnerabletosustainingsubduralhematomas,andsometimestheycan even occur spontaneously. The child abuse doctor had nevermentioned these enlargements and it remains unknown whethershe bothered to give this unusual neurological presentation anyconsideration when forming her opinion of abuse. The pediatricneurologist verified that there could be non-abusive explanationsfor the subdural hematoma (when DCFS finally spoke with thisspecialistweeks later at the endof July, the pediatric neurologistconfirmedthatthepossibilityforabusewas“extremelylow”).

BythetimeAmeliawasdischargedonJuly9,ValerieandJimhadalready realized that the deck was being stacked against them byachildabusespecialistdoctor,andthat,sadly,theycouldnotrelyuponthemedicalprofessionalsatChildren’sMemorialHospitaltoweigh in and diagnose the most likely cause of Amelia’s subduralhematoma.

Whilethepediatricneurologistprovidedthemcriticalinformationthatseemedtobedirectlyatoddswiththecursoryandprematureopinion of the child abuse doctor, Amelia was not released fromthe hospital to her parents. Rather, pursuant to the direction ofDCFS,Ameliawouldspendthenextthreeexcruciatingweekslivingseparately fromherparents.Afterfinding thatobtaining adefini-tivesecondopinioninChicagowouldbeimpossiblebecauseDCFSwouldbelookingtotheheadofthechildabuseteamatChildren’sMemorialandotherdoctorsinthathospitalcouldnotbecountedontocontradictheropenly,ValerieandJimdecidedtohaveAmelia

seen on the east coast at one of the country’s premiere children’shospitals.To get there, Valerie was not even allowed to go withherowndaughterherself;acousinhadtoflywithherbecausetheDCFSsafetyplanbarredherfrombeingalonewithherowndaugh-ter.Fortunately,ValerieandJim’sfamilyhadpersonalconnectionswithsomeofthestaffatthehospitalthatfacilitatedtheseappoint-ments—personalconnectionsthatmostfamiliesdonothave.

Followingthistrip,ValerieandJimreceivedwrittenreportsoffivesub-specialists (including a neuroradiologist, a pediatric neurolo-gist,twochildprotectionpediatricians,andanexperiencedattend-ingpediatricianwhospentoveronehourexaminingAmelia)whoall concluded that abuse was not the most likely explanation forAmelia’s subdural hematoma. Rather, these specialists concludedthat,givenAmelia’sfullmedicalhistoryandtheabsenceofanyotherindicatorofabuse,itwasmorelikelythatthehematomawascausedbyeitherhertraumaticdeliveryorthebenignenlargementsofhersubarachnoidspaces.Thechildprotectionpediatricians—doctorswiththesamespecializationandequalorsuperiorexperienceandcredentials to those of the Children’s Memorial child abuse doc-tor—wereclearthatanisolated,smallsubduralhematomaisnot,byitself,diagnosticofabuse.

DespiteValerieandJim’sattorneysattheFamilyDefenseCenterhav-ingprovidedthesewrittenreports(alongwithdetailedexplanatorylettersandsupplementaryinformationandarticles)toDCFSonJuly20andJuly22,DCFSdidnotbackdownfromits insistencethatAmeliacontinuetoliveseparatelyfromherparents.AnddespitetheFDCattorneyshavingprovidedthesereportstotheattorneyfortheChildren’sMemorialchildabusedoctor, it isunclear if thisdoctoreverretractedherinitialopinionofabuse.OnJuly22—thedaytheinitialsafetyplanwassetto“expire”—theinvestigativeteambeganpressuringValerieandJimtosignanothersafetyplan.Theinvestiga-tor’ssupervisortoldFDCattorneysthat“until [theChildren’sMe-morialabusedoctor]saysokay,[Amelia]staysinthesafetyplan”andthatDCFSwasstillwaitingforherfinalreport.(TotheknowledgeofValerie,Jim,andtheFDCattorneys,suchareportnevermaterial-ized.)WhenValerieandJimsuggestedaless-intrusivesafetyplanthatwouldallowthemtolivewithAmeliabutstillprohibitunsupervisedcontact,thesupervisortoldValeriethatsuchaplanwasoutofthequestion“duetothenatureoftheinjury.”Again,thesupervisortoldValeriethatifsheandJimdidnotsignthesafetyplanasdictatedbyDCFS,Ameliawouldbetakenintoprotectivecustody.

InlightofsuchthreatsandDCFS’flatrefusaltonegotiateanyterms,JimandValeriedecidedtosignthesafetyplanbuttheywroteontheplanthattheirsignaturesweregiven“underduress.”Theinvestiga-tortoldthemthatthesafetyplanwas“nullandvoid”ifsignedunderduress—thatDCFSrequiredtheirunqualifiedsignaturesinordertoavoidprotectivecustody.Moreover,theinvestigatorrefusedtogiveValerieandJimacopyofthe“underduress”safetyplan.Leftwithnootherchoice,beingleftpowerlesstoevenvoiceanobjectiontotheircoercedlivingarrangements,andbaseduponDCFS’assuranc-esthattheywoulddoeverythingpossibletoobtaintheChildren’sMemorialdoctor’sfinalreportthenextday,JimandValeriesignedthesafetyplanasdraftedbyDCFS,withtheunderstandingthatitwould“expire”at4:00p.m.thenextday,aFriday.

Thenextdayat4:30p.m., the investigatorcontactedValerieandJimandconfessedthatDCFSstilldidnothavethefinalreport(asitwouldturnout,DCFSwouldneverreceiveanyfinalreportde-spitethesupervisor’srepeatedassertionsthroughouttheinvestiga-tionthatDCFSwoulddefertothatfinalopinion).Theinvestigator

Family Vindicatedcontinued from page 3


5 Vol.4,No.2

Fall 2010 Staff (back row left to right): Law clerks Gillian Barjon and Eleana Lindsay, Administrator Mayetis Dawson and Development Coordinator Cheryl Zminda; (front row left to right): Attorneys Allegra Cira Fischer, Diane Redleaf and Melissa Staas.

reportedthathissupervisorfeltthatiftherewasnosafetyplaninplace,DCFSwouldhavetotakeprotectivecustody.Therefore,theinvestigatorwantedtoextendthesafetyplantoTuesdayorWednes-dayof the followingweek. Unwilling togiveanymisconceptionthat they in any way agreed to continue living apart from theirdaughter,ValerieandJimsenttheinvestigatoraletterstatingthatalthoughtheywouldabidebythetermsDCFShaddictated,theyfeltthattherewasnolegalorsafetyreasonforAmeliatoliveoutsideofherownhomeandtheydidnotsignanyfurtherplan.

Overthefollowingweeks,thesupervisorandtheinvestigatorcon-tinuedtoinsistthatAmeliaeitherliveseparatelyfromValerieandJim,orthatprotectivecustodywouldbetaken.Whiletherewouldbeintermittentdemandsofanewsafetyplan,neithertheinvesti-gatornorthesupervisorpresentedanewplanforValerieandJimtosign.As theweekswentby, itwasclear that in theabsenceofa report fromChildren’sMemorial, the investigationwasquicklylosingsteam.UpontheassessmentoftheFDCattorneysthatthelikelihoodofprotectivecustodywasactuallyclosetonil(despitethesupervisor’smakingsuchthreatswellintoAugust),ValerieandJimfinallybroughttheirdaughterAmeliahomeonJuly29.

Ultimately, the investigation was brought to a close in fits andstarts, evidencingDCFS’confusion in theabsenceofcleardirec-tionfromtheChildren’sMemorialabusedoctor.OnSeptember23,theDCFSsupervisorinformedtheFDCthatDCFSwasclosingthecaseasunfounded,andValerieandJimreceivedwrittenconfirma-tionoftheunfoundeddeterminationinnoticesdatedOctober12.

***

Valerie,Jim,andAmelia’sordealillustratestroublingrealitiesatplayinchildabuse investigations, especiallyones that involvemedicalcomplications.Throughouttheirordeal,DCFSdeferredtoanas-tonishingdegreetoasingleChicago-areachildprotectiondoctor,ignoring the opinion of equal or superior doctors in the family’sfavor.DCFSalsorepeatedlythreatenedthefamilywithirreparableharmonthesay-soofthissingledoctorwhenDCFShadnorealintentionofproceedingincourtagainstthem. Moreover, inthiscase,DCFSforcedthefamilytoseparatesimplybecauseithadn’tdoneitsownhomeworkandwhenevidencecameinthatsupportedthe family, DCFS delayed in reviewing it. Also troubling aboutAmelia’scaseisthedifficultyherparentshadinaccessingmedicalopinionfromChicago’smedicalcommunityonceDCFSwascalledagainstthem.Indeed,theywereonlyabletogetawrittenopinionintheirfavorfromoneoftheChicagoneurologistsaftertheypro-videdhimandDCFSdetailedlettersfromtheeastcoastdoctors.DCFS’power to foreclose access to secondand thirdopinions isprecludingfamilies’abilitytoprovideevidencethatwillhelpthemstaytogetherandavoidfalseallegations.

FamiliesinChicagoareingraveneedofcourageousmedicalprofes-sionalswhoareinapositiontostemthetideagainsttheprematureanddamagingopinionsofdoctorssuchastheoneatChildren’sMe-morial. (E.g., see article p. 8, “Meet Dr. Christopher Sullivan, 2010 Family Defender.”) Whetherthiscomesintheformofchildprotec-tionpediatricianswhotakethetimetoeducatethemselvesregardingrelevantsub-specialties(suchasneurologyororthopedics)orfromthe sub-specialists themselves, either improvement would be wel-come.Unlessthemedicalcommunitystepsintoensurethatacau-tious, informed, andevidence-baseddifferentialdiagnosis isbeingmadeineachandeverycase,familieswillremainatthemercyofthefewdoctorswhofeelfreetoformandshareabuseconclusionsbeforeallthefactsandmedicalcircumstanceshavebeenfullyconsidered.

Family Vindicatedcontinued from page 4

TheFamilyDefender 6

Our Son Has Been Abused and Neglected By the System That Ignores His Mental Health Needs

A Parent’s Story of A Fight for Justice for Her Child and for the Children of Illinois


By Toni Hoy

“Theseboyshavebeenseverelyneglected.Oncetheygetintoapermanenthome, theywillbe justfine,” said theDCFS

caseworkerwhenplacingtwoandfouryearoldfosterboys inourhome.Wehadrequestedchildrenwhodidnothavementalillness,asIdidnotfeelequippedtohandlesuchneeds.Timerevealedsevereemotional disorders in both boys, however, who we adopted twoyearslater.

The elder, Chip, had three-hour-long violent rages. Psychotropicmedicinestabilizedhisbipolardisorder.Hehasbeenstableforsevenyearsnowandisdoingwell.Theneglecthehadexperiencedasan infantmanifested it-selfdifferentlywithDan.Hethrewtoysandother objects.He smashed things andhurtpeople. Extra doses of time and attentiondidn’t make a difference, nor did talkingtohim,puttinghimin time-out,or takingawayprivileges.Andmedicationdidn’tworkas itdidforChip.Butregardlessofhisbe-havior,wecounthimasablessing.

WhenDanwastenyearsold,Ireturnedtofull-time work to support our family. Weenrolledthechildreninpublicschool,afterhomeschoolingthemforeightyears.Theolderthreekidsadaptedfine. Dan fell apart.Within six weeks, he entered the psychiatricward for danger to himself and others. He continued to cycle inandoutofthepsychiatrichospitals,tenmoretimes,overthenexttwoyears.HeisdiagnosedwithOCD,bipolar,ADHD,CD,andintermittentexplosivedisorder.Collectively,thesymptomsmanifestasPTSD,orposttraumaticstressdisorder.Hisaggressionincreased.Wewerecalling911onaregularbasis,ashewasdangeroustowardshissiblings,onceholdingaknifetohisbrother’sthroatandthreaten-ingtokillhim.Sightsandsoundsoftheclassroomsomehowtrig-geredhis symptoms, takinghimback to the timeof trauma.Hismindcouldn’tremember,buthisbodywasrelivingatimewherehelayinababycarrier,soakedinurine,cold,lethargic,starving,andfacingdeathasaninfant.

Wehitacrossroadsatthe11thhospitalization.Hewas13yearsold.Thetherapistsallsaidheneededtobeinaresidentialfacility.Hisbehaviorcouldnotbesafelymanagedinafamilysetting.Theydidn’ttelluswe’dhavetotradeourcustodyrightstogetDanthehelpheneeded.

Our insurance company said theywouldnot cover the $150,000peryearcost.OurcountymentalhealthagencytoldustoapplyfortheIndividualizedCareGrant(ICG).Theyturndown84%ofap-plicants.MedicaidalsodeniedcoverageandDCFSrefusedtohelp.

We carefully weighed every option. Could we borrow $150,000?No,anditwouldtakemorethanoneyearof$150,000billsanyway;we’re not wealthy. Could we bring him home? No, he was going

tohurt or kill us or one of the other kids.Couldwe live in twoseparatedwellings, as ifweweredivorced?DCFSwas in favorofthisidea.Thatwouldstillnotguaranteesafety.WecouldhaveDanarrested.Ourattorneywiselyadvisedusthatjuveniledetentionwastooharshforanemotionallycompromisedchild.TheenvironmentwouldelevatehisanxietyandtriggerhisPTSD.Therewasonlyoneotherchoice:wecouldrefusetopickhimupfromthehospitalonthegroundsthatwecouldn’tprotectourselves.DCFShadwarnedusthatifwebroughthimhome,we’driskbeingchargedwithchildendangermentforfailuretoprotectourotherkids.Atthesametime,ifwedidn’tpickhimup,they’dchargeuswithneglect.Bychoos-

ingnottopickhimup,we’dallbesafe.He’dgetpsychiatrictreatment,butwe’dgettreatedlikechildneglecters.Ofallthepossiblehorri-blechoices,gettingalabelof“childneglecter”hadthefewestbadeffects.Sothat’swhatwedid—we decided not to pick Dan up fromthehospital.

Sureenough,wewerechargedwithneglect.DCFS Procedure for Rule #84, Lockout,however, lists specific reasonsDCFScannotindicateafindingagainstaparent,including:if thechildhashadaclinical staffing, if thechild is dangerous towards the family, or if

the child has a mental health history. While all of the above ap-plied,DCFSindicatedtheallegationanyway,placingournamesontheStateCentralRegisterofchildneglecters.Wefoughtinjuvenilecourt to get the neglect finding amended to “no-fault dependen-cy”andsucceeded.Weappealedtheindicatedfindingandhadournamesexpungedaschildneglecters.

TheState’sAttorneytoldus,however,thatno-faultdependencycasescarrythesame“stigma”asabusecases.Thatistrue.Wehopedtimewouldalleviatethestigma,butithasn’t.DCFScontinuesto“pro-cess”usthroughthesysteminexactlythesamemannerasparentswhoabusechildren.Forthelast30months,we’vebeeninspected,interrogated,andtreatedascriminals.Constantthreatsof“complywith the termsof the serviceplanor risk terminationofparentalrights”loomoveruslikeadarkcloud.Theprocedureisexactlythesame.Wefellvictimtosystematicoppression.

During the springof 2010, I foundout about aMedicaidprovi-sion called Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment(EPSDT).Thisfederal lawstatesthat“ifa licensedpractitionerofthehealingarts(LPHA)deemsthatatreatmentismedicallyneces-sarytocorrectorameliorateacondition,thestatemustprovideit,whetherornotitiscoveredunderanyotherstateplan.”InJune,IattendedastatewidemeetingofchildmentalhealthstakeholdersinwhichHFS, theagency thatadministersMedicaid in Illinois,waspresent, as well as DCFS, senatorial, and gubernatorial staff. Themeetingopenedwithmyvideo,“He’sMySon,”whichcanbeviewedat http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/tonihoy-242910-Son-he-s-my-Occasions-Family-ppt-powerpoint/

Of all the possible horrible choices, get-ting a label of “child neglecter” had the least bad effects.

7 Vol.4,No.2

A Parent’s Storycontinued from page 6

Justwhenwethoughtwe’dseeneverysortofmisplacedaccusation,another family comes to our attention. We believe these stories,thoughwewishtheyweren’ttrue.

•Six-yearoldAdamhasautismandresistsroutinedentalcare.Butthatdidnot stopDCFS fromaccusinghisparents of “dentalne-glect.”Thefamilycontactedover80pediatricdentiststoseektreat-

ment, all of whom were unwillingtocareforAdamgiventheneedforextra precautions in order to workwith a child with his disabilities;Adamneededtobesedatedinordertohavehisteethcleaned.Thefam-ily’sdifficultiesingettingdentalcaredidnotstopDCFSfromindicatingthem for “dental neglect.” Fortu-nately,aftertheFDCappealedandrecruited attorneys from McDer-mott,Will&EmerytohelpAdam’sparents, DCFS saw the light anddroppedtheallegations.Sometimesneglectisn’tduetoparents’failings,but to a system that provides little

ornohelptoparents inneed(see Toni Hoy’s story at p. 6).Butwestillcan’tbelievethatfamiliesaregettingunfairlytargetedaschild

neglectersinsteadofgettingthehelptheyneedtocarefortheirkids!

•T.isthemotherofa17-year-oldsonN.whohasbeenagangmem-berandactsoutofcontrol.Onaparticularlybadday,T.askedN.tocleanupafteradogandinsteadhethrewdogfecesathisyoungerbrother.Then,whenT.triedtostophim,heattackedher,usingapieceofabrokenvasewhichcouldhavekilledher.Inthetussle,N.stabbedhimself. The result—you guessed it—T. got indicated for abuse ofN.!AndDCFSaffirmedthedecisiondespitebelievingsheacted inself-defense.Wecan’tbelieve that itwill takeanappellate ruling tovindicateT.

•Vickielostcustodyofherchildreninthemid1990’s,duetoherdrugaddition,butsheturnedherlifearoundandregainedcustodyofherchildrenfromthejuvenilecourt.Herlifewasgoingwell,withanewjobasachildcareassistant,alluntilheremployerranaman-datorybackgroundcheckanddiscoveredanoverextendedindicatedreportstemmingfromherpre-rehabdays.Vickiewaslaidoff,andwhenshetriedtoappealtheindicatedfindingthatshehadn’tknownwasstillonherrecord,shewastoldshewastoolate.ShetookthecaseuptotheCircuitCourt.Fortunately,atthispoint,shefoundtheFDC.TheFDC’sinterventionconvincedtheDCFSlawyerstogiveherasecondchance.Westillcan’tbelievethatamodelrehabi-latedmotherlikeVickieisbeingkeptoutofajobshelovesbecauseDCFS’srighthand(thejuvenilecourt)doesn’tcommunicatewithitslefthand(theadministrativeindicatedreportsystem).

Can You Believe This?

During this meeting, everyone agreed that prescribed residentialtreatmentisa“service”underthisprovision.Thereasonthisserviceisnotcoveredisbecausethebehavioralhealthcentersarelicensedaschildcarecenters.InordertoqualifyforMed-icaidfunding,theywouldhavetobelicensedaspsychiatricresidentialfacilities(PRTF).TheDepartmentofAlcoholandSubstanceAbuse(DASA)confirmedthattheircentershadbeenlicensedasPRTFsforover15years.Ivoicedtwoimportantissues:

1. Childrenwithmentalhealthissuesconcur-rentwith substanceabuse issuesget treat-mentandtheparentskeepguardianship.

2. BUT children with mental health issuesalonegettreatmentonlyiftheparentsloseguardianship.

WhileDHSstaffagreedthiswastrue,andthatbynotprovidingtreatmentforourson,we’dbeen forced to tradecustodyrights formen-talhealthcare,oursonremainedawardofthestate.HFSagreedtopursuelicensingthecen-tersasPRTFssotheycouldacceptMedicaid,however,theyadmittedpubliclythattheyhadtalkedaboutitforoveradecadeandnotdoneit,andthatitwouldnothappenexpediently.

Wedecidedourfinal recoursewas to sueHFS, forcing themintocompliancewithfederalMedicaidlaw.OnNovember3,2010,we

filedafederallawsuitagainsttheStateofIllinoisforinjunctiverelieffor our son’s treatment under the EPSDT provision of Medicaid.Ourcase,Number,1:2010cv07098,D.H. by and through his parents, Toni Hoy and James Hoy vs. Grace Hong Duffin, Carol Adams, Julie Hamos, Barry Maram,isnowpendinginfederalcourtbeforeJudgeJohnDarrah.

Essentially,myhusbandandIhavebeenun-necessarilyandillegallyrobbedofcustodyofoursonforthelast30monthsinexchangeforhisgettingmentalhealthtreatment.DanhasbeenrobbedofthefamilythatDCFSawardedhim through adoption. InApril of2008,hebecameawardofthestateforthesecondtime,sufferingloss,abandonment,andgriefbecauseof failuretoobtaintreatment for thetraumathatbroughthim into the foster care systemthefirst time.The federal court inCollins v. Hamilton,inIndiana,determinedthatastatemaynotexcludepsychiatric residential treat-mentprogramsfromMedicaid.Butevenifwewinthissuit,wewillhavetopetitionthejuve-nilecourtforreturnofcustodyrightsandDanwillcontinuetoneedresidentialtreatmentforthe foreseeable future—thoughwewouldbeabletoaccessthattreatmentforhim,wehope,withoutrelinquishingcustody.

Dan resides atChaddockResidentialCenterin Quincy, Illinois. He is now 16 years old.We visit him often. He remains emotionally

unstable—thevictimofchildabuseataveryearlyagebeforehewasadopted,andsystemicabusebyasystemthathassincethenfailedhimandus.

My husband and I have been unneces-sarily and illegally robbed of custody of our son for the last 30 months in exchange for his get-ting mental health treatment.

TheFamilyDefender 8

please turn to page 9Diane Redleaf celebrates Dr. Sullivan’s award as 2010 Family Defender with his parents, Kathleen and C. Jerome Sullivan.

By Diane Redleaf

Dr.ChristopherSullivanneversetouttobecomeanexpertwit-nessinchildabusecasesonbehalfofwronglyaccusedfamilies.

Norhasheeverviewedhimselfasadoctorwhosemissionistosavehispatients’lives,thoughmanyoftheFamilyDefenseCenter’scli-

entsthinkhehasdoneexactlythat.Dr.Sullivanpickedorthopedicsur-geryashisspecialtyareabecausehepreferrednottotreat“lifeordeath”illnesses; rather, he wanted to pro-videcareandtreatmentthatwouldenablepeopletolivedecentlives(byhelping themwalk, sit, and gener-allyfunctionbetter).

While his practice is primarily inareasoftraditionalpediatricortho-pedics,Dr.Sullivanhasseenenoughinjusticeinthechildwelfaresystem

tohavestepped intothe fraywhenmostdoctors shyaway.Whenotherdoctorswholackhisknowledgeoforthopedicshavemadeac-cusationsthatwould,ifcredited,haveirreparablyharmedfamilies,Dr.Sullivanhasprovidedcrucialmedical explanations supportingfamilieswhohavebeenwronglyaccusedofabuse.Dr.Sullivanhasbeenwillingtoquestionthebadsciencebehindmanyreflexive“proabuse”accusationsthathaveariseninnumerousbonefracturecases.His ability to provide cogent, common sense and medically sup-portedexplanationsforfractures(asaccidentalorwhosecausecan-notbedeterminedtobeduetoabuse)hashelpedmanyinnocentparentsavoidthetraumaofseparationand/orthestigmatizinglabelof“childabuser.”

“Bones by themselves can’t tell you the cause of their breaking,”notesDr.Sullivan,explainingwhyitissovitaltohaveexpertortho-pedicopinionsinconsideringwhetheraspecificfractureislikelytobeduetoabuseorwassimplyanaccident.Oftentimes,parentstrulydonotknowwhathascausedachild’sfracture.Dr.Sullivannotesthatorthopediststhemselvesconsideritcommonforparents“nottoknow”howachildgotafractureanditiswrongtoassumethatonlychildabusecouldhavebeenthecause.Unfortunately,incaseafter

case,pediatricianswhocallthemselveschildabuseexpertsjumptoconclusions that certain types of fractures (spiral, femur, or morethanonefractureatdifferenttimes)musthavebeencausedbyabuseorthatparentswhocannotexplainhowafractureoccurredarelyinginordertoprotectthemselves.Thesedoctorsoftenpossessnothingmoreinsupportoftheirconclusionthatabuseoccurredthananx-rayofabrokenbone.“Thereisnosuchthingasafracturethatonlycanbecausedbychildabuse,”Sullivannotes,andheaddsthat,“inmanyofthecasesinwhichabuseisallegedlythecause,itishardtofigureouthowabusecouldhaveproducedthephysicalfindingswesee on x-rays.” Moreover, “an isolated long-bone fracture is not agoodindicatorthatachildhasbeenabused.”

The challengeof determining if the causes of a fracture are likelyto be due to child abuse makes it especially important to under-standthephysicalmechanicsofbonefractures,includingthesortsofforcesthatproducefractures.Experiencewiththousandsofcasesofaccidentalfracturesandbonediseasesandconditionsalsohelps,forwhatlookslikeabusetoadoctorwhorarelytreatsbonefracturesmayactuallybethesortofaccidentalinjurythatorthopedistsdonotconsidersuspiciousatall.

•••••••••••••

Dr. Sullivan—Chris to his friends and colleagues— grew up inthenorthernandnorthwesternsuburbsofChicago.Helivedwithhisfamily(heistheoldestofsixchildren)inMt.Prospect.Whenhe started high school at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, his fam-ilymoved toGlenview tobe closer tohis school.Hedidwell inschoolandwenttocollegeattheUnitedStatesAirForceAcademyinColoradoSprings,Colorado.Therehemajoredinphysicsandlifesciences—inretrospect,theseturnedouttobenaturalareasofcon-centrationforanorthopedicsurgeon.Hegraduatedinthetop1%ofhisclassandentertainedtheplanofbecomingapilot.Realizingthatflyingplaneswouldonlybeexcitingintheeventofcombat,andthattakingpartincombatitselfwouldnotbedesirable,heshiftedgearsfromaviationtomedicinewhileattheAcademy.(Nowhehas“about30secondsofregret”thathedidn’tbecomeapilot.)

FromColorado,Dr.SullivanmovedwesttoCalifornia.HeremainedonactivedutywhileattendingUCLA,wherehereceivedhismedi-caldegree.Inadditiontohismedicaldegree,heearnedaMaster’sDegreeinpublichealth,focusingonepidemiology.Thisbackgroundgiveshimanaddedunderstandingofthecomplexityofmakingpersestatementsaboutchildabusewhenthetrueincidenceofabuseisoftenbothunknownandmisunderstood.

Dr.Sullivanwasn’tsurewhatkindofdoctorhewantedtobe,butheknewhedidn’twanttobeonepracticinginanareathatworkedby“givingoutpills”andthenexaminingthechemicalreactionthisproduced.Hetoyedwithbecomingaplastic/reconstructivesurgeon.Inordertobecomeaplasticsurgeon,hefirsthadtotrain ingen-eralsurgery,orthopedicsandear,nose,andthroatsurgery.Throughthisprocessofexploration,whichincludedtheunusualaddedback-ground (for anorthopedist)of an internship in internalmedicineinSanAntonioTexasin1980-1981,hediscoveredthatorthopedicsinterestedhimmost.Heespeciallylikesthefactthatorthopedicsin-corporateshisinterestsinphysicsandmechanicsinsolvingconcreteproblemsandhelpingchildren.

FollowinghisinternshipinTexas,Dr.SullivanmovedbacktoChi-

Meet Dr. Christopher Sullivan, 2010 Family Defender

9 Vol.4,No.2

Dr. Sullivancontinued from page 8


Dr. Christopher Sullivan, Clare and Jannine Sullivan.

cagoin1981anddidhisresidencyinorthopedicsatNorthwesternUniversity.HespentayearatChildren’sMemorialHospitalforhispediatricorthopedicrotation.FromtherehetookacircuitousroutebacktoCaliforniaforapositionwithaneworthopedicsserviceatGeorgeAirForcebase(whichsubsequentlyclosed)andatEdwardsAirForceBase.Thispositionwasfollowedbyaprestigiousfellow-shipinpediatricorthopedicsattheChildren’sHospitalandHealthCenter(nowRadyChildren’sHospital)inSanDiego.Whilehewasin theAirForce, a friend frommedical school introducedhimtoa woman named Jannine who was the friend’s child’s pre-schoolteacher.Dr.Sullivanfirstgottoknowhisfuturewife,whowasfromGilroy,California, strictlybyphonecalls.Eventually, thetwometface-to-faceandthatmeetingapparentlyworkedoutwell;theyweremarriedinDecember1988.Janninehadachild,Joseph,whomDr.Sullivanadoptedthreeyearslater.

AlthoughDr.Sullivanmovedeveryfewyearswhilehewaspursuinghiseducation,hiswanderlustendedwhenheacceptedhispositionattheUniversityofChicagoin1989.HemovedhisfamilytoHydeParkand he became a faculty memberintheDepartmentofSurgery,di-vision of Orthopedics and Reha-bilitativeMedicine.Hehasstayedtherefor21yearsandnowdirectsthePediatricOrthopedicsandSco-liosisProgram.

•••••••••••••

ProtectingfamiliescomesnaturallytoDr.Sullivan,forhisownfamilyrootsarestrong.Thefatheroffourchildren, Clare, Sean, Carl, andJoseph,whorangeinagefrom13to24,hetakeshavingalargefam-ilyinstride.Henotesthathisownfamilyis“onthesmallside,”giventhat he has two sisters who haveninechildreneach,abrotherwhohasadoptedsixchildren,abrotherwhoadoptedtwochildren,andanotherbrotherwhoadoptedtwochildrenandhasabiologicalchild.Alltold,hisownparentsaretheluckygrandparentsof33grandchildren (andfivegreat grandchil-dren,sofar)sothereareplentyofcousinsatallages.

Ontheeveninghewasinterviewedforthisbiography,Dr.Sullivanhadbeenatworksince7:00a.m.Hehadseen52patientsbeforehisworkdayendedatabout7:00p.m.Thisisatypicalscheduleonhisclinicaldaysandheisinsurgerythreedaysaweekaswell.Longdaysandafairlylongcommute—fromHinsdalewherethefamilymovedin1996—typifyhispractice.Yetherarelyseemstiredandal-mostneversaysheistoobusytoconsideranotherpressingcase.Hisloyalstaff,administratorEarnestineSchellandnurseBobbieReyes,protecthistimeasbesttheycantokeephimfromover-extendinghimself. They rarely succeed, especially when the Family DefenseCentercallswithanurgentnewcaseofpossiblemistakenclaimsofchildabuse.

Likemostpediatricorthopedists,Dr.Sullivan’sday-to-daypracticeinvolvestreatingeverydaychildhoodaccidents(whichincreasedur-ingthesummermonths)anddisabilitieslikescoliosisandcerebral

palsy.Thelargestshareofhispractice(40%ormore)involvescaringforchildrenwithdisabilitiesbecausetheyoftendevelopimpairmentsoftheirjointsandambulatoryfunctions.Othersignificantpartsofhispracticeinvolvecorrectingbirthdefectsaswellasoperatingonteenage girls who develop scoliosis and require corrective surgery.WorkingdirectlywithDCFScaseworkers,heprovidescareforchil-drenwhoareinfosterhomesorothersubstitutecare.Childabusecasesareaverysmallfractionofhispractice—heestimatesthatthesecasesarenomorethan5%ofhiswork.Dr.SullivanispleasedtonotethatinjuriesheconsidersunlikelytobetheresultofchildabusenolongerareascommonlythesubjectofatraumaticinvestigationwhenthecasesfirstpresentthemselvesattheUniversityofChicagoHospital.“Itseemstomethat,unlikeatotherhospitalswheresomedoctorsoverstatethelikelihoodthatisolatedlegandarmfracturesaredue to abuse,ourownchildprotection teamhas learned thatthe likelihood that thesecaseswillprove tobecausedbyabuse isverylow.”ThecasesinwhichDr.Sullivantestifiesarealmostalwaysonesinwhichanotherhospital’schildabuseteamopinesthatthereischildabuseeventhoughorthopedistshavenotbeenconsultedinreachingthatconclusion.[InallthreemajorFamilyDefenseCentercases inwhichDr.Sullivanhas testified, theopposingchildabuse

doctorswere fromChildren’sMe-morial Hospital. Children’s Me-morial’s child abuse team doctorshave also been on the opposingsideofUniversityofChicagoneu-rosurgeons and other experts innumber of medically-complex al-legedabusecases.]

Over theyearsofhiswork at theUniversity of Chicago ComerChildren’s Hospital, he has beeninvolved in an estimated30 casesinwhichtheStatehas,inDr.Sul-livan’sestimation,incorrectlycon-cluded that a parent or guardianwas a perpetrator of abuse or ne-glect that caused a bone fracture.ThefirsttwosuchcasesDr.Sulli-vanacceptedwererevealing.Inthefirstcase,theOfficeofPublicDe-

fendersimplycontactedhimtoseeifhewouldbewillingtoreviewsome medical records. In this case, there were two 10-month-oldtwins, includingonewhomthe fatherhad removed froma swingandhappenedtohavejerkedhislegindoingso.Thefatherhadno-ticedthattheinfantwasguardingthatleg,sothenextdayadoctorsentthechildforanMRIscan,which,indeed,showedadisplacedfemur fracture. Children’s Memorial Hospital doctors reportedlyalsosawnewboneformationonbothoftheinfant’shumerusbonesonaskeletalsurvey.Theyconcludedthattherewerethreefracturesand therefore the childhadbeen abused.Both childrenwere im-mediatelyremovedfromthefather.Adaylater,however,thescanswerere-readanditturnedoutthatwhathadlookedlikeadditionalfractureswasnormaldevelopmentinachildthatage.Dr.Sullivantestifiedthatgiventheonefractureandtheexplanationgiven,thefe-murfracturecouldcertainlyhavebeenaccidental,notduetoabuse.Laterhedidamajorstudythatdemonstratedthatfemurfracturesarelesscommonlyduetoabusethanhadbeengenerallybelieved.

Thesecondcasewasmoreshocking,givingDr.Sullivanatasteofthepotentialinjusticesandtraumasunnecessarilyinflictedonchil-

TheFamilyDefender 10



Caring for children in Haiti.

drenandfamilieswhentheStatefirstmakesamistakeindiagnosingan injuryandthen labeling itaschildabuse.At issue in thecase,at leastwhen itwasfirstpresentedtoDr.Sullivan,waswhetheraboy’sjawfracturehadbeencausedbyhishittinghischinonarock,ashe,hismother,andneighborhoodchildrenhadasserted.Awell-known child abuse expert opined that this explanation could notaccountforthefracture,soafterthisexpertwascalledtotestifyincourt,DCFSwasgiventemporarycustodyofthefivechildreninthefamily.Dr.Sullivandiscovered,tohissurprise,thattheradiologicalreportthatthechildabuseexperthadrelieduponshowednofrac-tureatall.Thechildabuseexperthadmisreadthex-rayasshowingafracturewheretheimageontheslidewasjustairbetweenthesoftpalateandthetongue.Apanoramicviewofthechild’sjawshowedthebonewasnormal.BythetimeDr.Sullivantestified,however,13monthshadelapsedandthechildrenhadbeenremovedfromthemotherduringthisentiretime.

Unfortunately, it isnotatall shockingthat therewasadisputeasto cause or that the family’s explanation was not credited againstthechildabuseexperts’.Thesesortsofproblems—thatparentsaredisbelievedandso-calledexpertsarecredited--arealltoocommon-place in the legal system.Dr.Sullivanwas to learn,however, thatevenafterhepointedoutthisfundamentalerrorinreadingx-rays,theStaterefusedtodropitsabusecaseandinsistedonproceedingtoahearing.ThejudgedidrelyonDr.Sullivan’stestimonyandsentthechildrenhome.However,theState’sacceptanceofanegregiousmedical error by a so-called child abuse expert, and its failure toacceptnewinformationfromahighly-qualifiedexpertpediatricor-thopedist,causedthetragedyofaprolongedfamilyseparationforadisadvantagedAfrican-AmericanmotherfromChicago’sSouthSidefromherfivechildren.

“IwouldnothavebelieveditunlessIsawthismyself!WhywouldtheStatepursuethiscasewhentherewasnoinjury?Herethismoth-erhadlostcustodyandherchildrenwereputintofostercarebecauseofafracturethatturnedoutnottoexist!”Dr.Sullivan—likemanyoftheprobonolawyers,professionalsandtheclientswhomtheFamilyDefenseCenterhelps—reasonablyexpectedthattherewouldhavetobesomemeritintheinitialaccusationforthechildwelfaresystemtohavetakentheextremeactionoftakingchildrenfromtheirpar-ent.LiketheclientsandattorneystheFamilyDefenseCenterworkswithroutinely,Dr.Sullivanwasoutraged todiscover that familiescouldbeneedlesslydestroyedwhenthebasicpremisethatthereisaninjuryturnsouttobewrong.

Sincethetimehetestifiedinthiscaseandexoneratedthemother,Dr.SullivanhasbeenrepeatedlyaskedbythePublicDefender’sOf-ficeandanumberofprivateattorneyswhopracticeinjuvenilecourttoevaluatepotentialwrongfulabuseallegations.Hehasnotsoughtouttherole,butneitherhasherefusedit.Hehasalsobeenaskedto reviewa fewcases for theState’sAttorney’sOfficeand isoftenconsultedforhisopinionbytheUniversityofChicagoComerHos-pital’sChildProtectionTeam.

Hehasnothesitatedtogetinvolvedindefendingwronglyaccusedparents.NotonlyisDr.Sullivanwillingtocomeforwardtotestifyinseeminglyunpopularcases,buthistrackrecordwhenhehasdonesoisoutstanding:inover90%ofthecasesinwhichhehastestified,thecourtshaveadoptedhisanalysis.Indeed,inonecaseherecallsthejudgerulingagainsthisopinion,buttheappellatecourtreversed,ex-

presslyfindingthatDr.Sullivan’sanalysiswasconvincingandshouldhavebeenadoptedbythetrialcourt.

Most recently,BrianandLauraTimmel’scase involvedabattleofmedicalexpertsinwhichDr.Sullivanledthemedicaleffortforex-oneration. Skilled in presenting both the affirmative case for thefamily and responding to cross-examination, Dr. Sullivan’s testi-monywas,inthewordsofthetrialcourt,“morecredible”thantheotherdoctors’and“hisexperienceonthebonefractureissuebeforethisCourtwassuperiortotheotherexperts’.”Dr.Sullivantestifiedatgreatlength,overtwodays,and“remainedcalm,logicalandin-structivethroughout.”

NoteveryoneappreciatesDr.Sullivan’swillingnesstotestifythattheState’scaseforchildabuseisweakerthanitappears.TheCookCoun-tyState’sAttorney’soffice,forexample,hastriedmightilytoportrayDr.Sullivanasa“defensehiredgun.”Thatportrayalisparticularlyhardtocredit,however:unlikemanyorthopedistswhochargewellover$500perhourfortheirtime,Dr.Sullivanfrequentlycutshisbillinhalfandthenneverevensendsitouttotheclientsonwhosebehalfhetestifies.

Dr.Sullivanpersonallyhatestosay“no”toaworthycase,butiscon-cernedthatrelativelyfeworthopedistsarewillingtostanduptode-fendfamilieswhoaregettingrailroaded.Hehasbecomesomethingofaproselytizerforthecauseofinvolvingorthopedistsindefendingfamiliesinthechildwelfaresystem.Heknowsthat“mostorthopedicsurgeonsdon’twanttogetanywherenearacourthouse.”

InaninvitedarticleintheJournal of Clinical Orthopedics,however,heurgeshispeers to step into these importantcasesbyprovidingexpertorthopedicopinionincasesofallegedchildabuseduetobonefractures.Herecountstheharmstofamiliesthatcanoccurifmedi-callyerroneouschildabuseallegationsare takenas true.HenotesthattheresourcesoftheState(whichhaschildabusedoctorsontheState’spayrollandunderlucrativecontracts)makeitveryhardformanyparents todefend themselveswhen theState claims, falsely,thattheinjurythechildhas“couldonlybecausedbychildabuse.”Inthesecases,heunderstandsthatitis“hardtoimaginewhattheparentcandotoprovetheirinnocenceunlesstheycanhavesome-onewhocaninterpretthefactscorrectlytoshowthatthemedicalassumptions the State is making are wrong.” Dr. Sullivan has nodifficultyputtinghimselfintotheshoesofthefamilieswhoareac-

11 Vol.4,No.2


FDC friends applaud Dr. Sullivan’s award.

PEP members Faith Kumar and Aida Vallecillo enjoy FDC Benefit. Event honors Dr. Sullivan (who helped Aida’s family in early 2008).

cusedofabuse,notingthat ifhewere intheirpositionanddidn’thaveaccesstoamedicalopiniontoexplaininjuriesinbenignterms,hewouldfeel“prettyhelpless.”Itisa“publicservice,”hebelieves,tohelpfamiliesbygivingalltheinformationthatisscientificallyavail-able. He knows that sometimes this information will prevent thewrongfultakingofchildrenfromtheparents.

“Thescienceofchildabuseisnowherenearascertainasissometimesportrayedbythesupposedchildabuseexperts,”notesDr.Sullivan.“Mygoalissimplytomakealltheinformationavailablesothejudgecanmakethebestdecisionpossible.”

Dr.Sullivanalsoknowsthatmistakesintakingchildrenfromtheirparentsduetoinnocuousfracturescansometimeshavetragicconse-quences.Inonecasehereviewed,thechildhadbeenplacedinfostercarebecauseofahumerus fracturewhichwasprobablyaccidentalandcertainlywasn’tserious.Thatsamechildhadmultiplechestx-raysinthefile.WhenDr.Sullivanaskedwhyhewasgettingsomanychestx-rays,hewastoldthatthissamechild,removedfromhisownhomeduetoaminorhumerusfracture,hadbeendippedinscaldingwaterbyhisfosterparentandhadsevereburnsover50%ofhisbody.

WhileDr.Sullivanhastakenastrongstandinthecauseofjusticeforfamiliesinthechildwelfaresystem,thechildwelfaresystemisfarfromthesolebeneficiaryofhishumanitarianwork.HerecentlyheededthecallformedicalsupporttovictimsoftheearthquakeinHaiti.Therehetreatedhundredsofchildrenandadultswithbonefracturesandotherinjuries.Sincehisreturn,hehasspokenabouthisexperiencestomedicalstudentsandothergroups.

At thecoreofDr.Sullivan’sworkareaverykeeneyeandagreatheart.Heisapersonwhoinspiresloveandloyaltyinhispatientsandtheirfamiliesandmorethanasmalldoseofawe.

When Diane Redleaf called Dr. Sullivan to tell him he had beenchosenasour“FamilyDefender”for2010,hisresponsewastypical:tothepointandupbeat.Hepausedforasecondandwiththehintofachuckle,hesaid,“Well,IguessIdeservethat!”Indeedhedoes!


By Mary Kelly Broderick1

To First Do No Harm?

Physicianstakeanoathtofirstdonoharm.Fordoctorswhopracticeaschildabuseexperts, it seems tome that the“firstdonoharm”principleisnotintheirconsideration.Whiletheymaynotbeactingoutofmalice towardschildrenand familieswhen they ignore theoath, they insteadoperateunder the assumption that they “knowabusewhentheyseeit”(evenifotherexpertswithspecializedknowl-edgedisagree),witha“childsaviors”mentalityandanassumptionthattheiradvocacyforabusedecisionscausesfamiliesnoharm.

Ihaveattendedseminarswhere“childabuseexperts” teachotherswhattosayduringaDCFSHotlinecalltoensurechildrenarere-movedfromtheirhomesduringaninvestigationintotheabuse.Inteaching how to have a child removed from the home during aninvestigation,thesesameexpertsdonotmentionthat44%2ofthesefamiliesarelaterfoundinnocentbytheverysame“childabuseex-perts”whoaretrainingthemtoseekchildremovalandanadditional27%3ofcasesarefoundindeterminate.Thereisnomentionofthe“childabuseexperts”ownerrorrate.Thereiscertainlynomentionoftheharmthatcomestothechildandthefamilyduetounneces-saryremovalfromthehome.Inmyopinion,teachingsocialwork-ers,nursesandothermandatedreporterswhattosaytohaveachildremovedfromahome(eitherthroughprotectivecustodyorthroughsafetyplans),while ignoring the fact thatmostof the families af-fectedbytheactionsareinnocent,is irresponsibleandmeansthattheydonotconsiderwhatisbestfortheirpatients.

Is MPEEC Helping Children or Ruining Families?

MultidisciplinaryPediatricEvaluationandEducationConsortium(MPEEC)wasformedattheinitiativeofDr.JillGlickoftheUniver-sityofChicagoComerChildren’sHospitalin2001.ItisfundedbytheStateofIllinois,primarilythroughDCFS,tocompensatedoc-torsandhospitalsformakingamedicaldiagnosisoffractures,headinjuriesandburns.Thedoctors’jobinthiscaseisnottodeterminethemedicalneedsofthechildorprovidetreatmentbuttodeterminewhat caused the injury or suspected injury. DCFS contracts withthesedoctorsfromChicago-areahospitalstomakeabusedetermina-tions.Since2001,MPEEChospitalsanddoctorshavereceivedmorethan$9millioninstategrants.

Asof2009,theMPEECdoctorsareabletobecertifiedinthesub-specialtyof“childabuse”.Thisstatusshouldimposeuponthemahigher standardof ethics in considering removalof children frominnocent parents. From my experiences with the Family DefenseCenterandtheseminarsIhaveattendedwherethe“childabuseex-

1 Mary Kelly Broderick is the immediate past president of the Family Defense Center. In 2003, her family was targeted in a head trauma case similar to the one involving Valerie and Jim (see p. 3). While the case against her was un-founded, as was Valerie and Jim’s case, her family was separated for over 43 days. As a result of her own experience and research, Mary Broderick has become a tireless advocate for the rights of families in medically complex cases.

2 MPEEC reports 2006 and first three FY 2009 quarters.

3 MPEEC reports 2006 and first three FY 2009 quarters.

perts”spoke,however,theMPEECexpertsdonotviewtheirroleashelpingchildrentoremainwiththeirfamilieswhenthefamilieslovethemandhavenotharmedthem.Instead,these“childabuseexperts”generallyprovidetheopinionandwriteintheirreportsthatparentsareguiltyofabuse“unlessprovenotherwise.”Andtheyoftentimesgooutoftheirwaytoignoreinformationthatcomesfrommedicalspecialists(orthopedists,neurosurgeons)thatshouldbeconsideredin“provingotherwise.”

Theseexpertsrelyontwodangerousassumptionswhenmakingde-cisions related to whether a child has been abused: first, they as-sumethatanyoneandeveryoneiscapableofhorrendouschildabuse.Theseexpertsuse this theoryespeciallywhenconsideringwhetherachildisavictimofinflictedheadtrauma(morepopularlycalled“shakenbabysyndrome”).Someofthesedoctorsreallybelievethatweareallcapableof“shakingthelifeoutofaninnocentbaby,”nomatterhowunlikelyitisthatapersonwhohasneverbeenviolentinherlifewillsuddenly“snap”andharmherownpreciousinfant.Thesedoctorsmaybejadedbytheirownbadexperienceswithpar-ents.Theymakeaveryharmfulandbiasedassumptionagainstgoodparentswhoaresimplyseekinganswerstomedicalquestionswhenthosequestionscometothesedoctors’attentionintheformofpos-sible,butnotlikely,casesofabuse.

Theseconddangerousassumptionthatthesedoctorsemployisthatifaparentdoesn’tknowhowaninjuryoccurred,theparentistobesuspectedofcausingtheinjury.WhileIunderstandthatpeoplewhoabusetheirchildrenlieandwithholdinformation,asamotherwiththreeyoungchildrenandapuppy,Iamalsoawarethatloving,car-ing,evenoverprotective,parentsdon’talwaysseethesignificanceofaparticularactioninpossiblycausinganinjury.Therearealsotimesspecificallywith very young infants thatparentsdon’t knowwhathappenedbecausetheinjurycamefrombirthtrauma.Aneurosur-geonexplainedtome,“formostofus,birthisthemosttraumaticeventinourlives.”

As professionals and “child abuse experts,” MPEEC doctors haveanobligationtofirstidentifytheerrorratesoftheirdiagnosisandthenworktoreduceit.Once,IaskedanMPEECdoctorwhatherownerrorratewas,andherresponsewasastounding:“HowwouldIknowthat?”Anydoctor’sresultscanbestudiedandevaluated—and judgmentsaboutchildabuseareobviouslynoexception.ButMPEECdoctorsresistoversightandevaluation.Itseemstomethatif adoctor isbreakingup families—asMPEECdoctors’decisionsdo—thosedoctorsshouldhavesomeideaofhowoftentheyareget-tingitright!ButIcannotlocateanystudiesthatdealwitherrorratesandmedically-diagnosedchildabuse.

Look at the Numbers.

IhavemademultipleFreedomofInformationActrequestsforin-formationaboutMPEECandDCFSinvestigations.Finally,a fewweeksago,Igotsomethingback,thoughofcoursewhatIgotwasnotwhatIrequested,whichwas,amongotherthings,abreakdownofMPEECcases,bydoctor,evaluating,byinjury(andspecificsofinjury),andbyoutcomeofDCFScases.

WhatIdidgetissomestatisticsthatmakemewanttoremindthese

MPEEC PROGRAM DATA SHOWS INNOCENT FAMILIES ARE BEING HARMED


13 Vol.4,No.2

“childabuseexperts”to“firstdonoharm.”Astunning71%ofthemedicalconclusionsdonotfindabuse.Thisisbrokendownto44%withaconclusionthatthetraumawasnotinflictedand27%ofcaseswherethe“childabuseexpert”concludesthattheycannotmakeaconclusion(i.e.“indeterminate”).

Interestingly theMPEECdoctors explain these cases as their suc-cesses,“MPEEC … ensures that accurate medical diagnoses are given in a timely fashion so that children who have not been abused are not needlessly subjected to prolonged investigations”.4AndrememberthatthesameMPEECdoctorsaretrainingpeopleonhowtomakeHot-linecallssothatchildrengettakenfromtheirparents!

Whatisatimelyinvestigation?Inconsideringthatquestion,itisim-portanttoconsiderwherethechildandfamilyarewhileawaitingan“accuratemedicaldiagnosis.”Sincethesesamedoctorshavesuccess-fullytrainedsocialworkers,nursesandother“mandatedreporters”toreportinawaythatensuresthatthechildisremovedfromthehome(whetherunderasafetyplanorprotectivecustody),andsincetheMPEECcasesinvolvesevereinjuries,mostoftheMPEECfami-liesareputintoso-calledsafetyplans.ThatmeansthattheparentsandchildrenareseparatedduringthetimethatMPEECisworkingonitsevaluationandinvestigation.Inmyopinion,atimelyinvesti-gationinsuchcircumstanceswouldbeonethatiscompletedwithin24hours.

DuringaseminarIattended,oneofthe“childabuseexperts”fromMPEECcomparedababywitha“subduralhematoma”toafifty-year-oldadultwithchestpainandtinglingdownthearm.Shestatedthatyouwouldneversendthefifty-year-oldmanhome.Herpointwasthatsuspectedchildabuseisasurgentasaheartattack.Butshedidnotrealizethattheremovalofachildfromahomeisequallyurgentforthechildandthefamily.

A2006MPEECreport5didnotusedays,butweeks,toreportonhowlongittooktocompletetheirmedicaldiagnosis.45%ofcasestookoveraweektocompleteamedicaldiagnosis,with22%takingoverthreeweeksorstillbeingopenatthetimethereportwascre-ated.

Ifthesamesenseoftimeasappliestocardiaccasesappliedtochildabusediagnoses,theheartpatientwouldbelongdeadandburiedby

4 CCAC 2nd quarter report FY 2006

5 FY2006 End of the Year MPEEC Statistical Summary

thetimeadiagnosiswasmade.

Thediagnosisofchildabuseaffectstheentirefamily,andthework-ingdiagnosis thatachild is “abusedunlessprovenotherwise” is adiagnosis that causes irreparable injury to families.Whena safetyplanisinplaceorprotectivecustodyhasbeentaken,thestrainonthefamilyisinsurmountable.The“childabuseexperts”andothersinthisfieldminimizeorignoretheshort-termandlong-termeffectsonnotonlyeachmemberofthefamilybutalsoonthefamilyasawhole,includingtheextendedfamily.Ibelievethelongeraninves-tigationgoeson,theneedlesslyworseoffafamilybecomes.Manyinnocent parents who were forced into safety plans for extended

periodsreport that theyhavebeendiagnosedwithPostTraumaticStressDisorder,GeneralizedAnxietyDisorder,andPanicDisorders.Divorceofinnocentparentsfollowingalongandheartwrenchinginvestigation, even if it clears themofwrongdoing, appears tobecommonplacecollateraldamagefromHotlinecallsthatleadtoin-correctassessmentsofchildabuse.

Whilethe“childabuseexperts”moveontothenextcase,thefam-ily is left topickup thepieces.These experts andDCFSprovideno counseling or other services to deal with the extreme anxiety,depression,angerandfearthatarecommonwheninnocentfamiliesareinvestigatedandhavetheirchildrenremovedfromthehomeforevenaverybriefperiod,letaloneanextendedperiodoftime.

Is MPEEC Unbiased?

Combinedwiththedangerousassumptionsandtheharmfultrain-ing MPEEC doctors are giving to cause families to be separated,thereseemstobeanunwillingnessamongtheMPEECdoctorstostudyconditionsthatmayexplainanalternativetothediagnosisofchildabuse.

During the last several years, I have requested that MPEEC doc-torsstudytherelationshipbetweenfalseallegationsofinflictedheadtrauma (i.e., shaken baby syndrome) and benign external hydro-cephalous.Benignexternalhydrocephalousistheconditionthattwoofmychildrenhave,anditiswellknowntocausechildrentohavesubduralhematomaswithminorimpacts.(See Valerie and Jim’s story at p. 3). WhileMPEECdoctorshavethedatatoconductaseriousstudyofhowoftenchildrenwithBEHhavebeenwronglysubjecttoshakenbabyallegations,theyhaverefusedtoinvestigatethisdata.IfMPEECdoctorswereunbiased,theywouldreadilylookforin-formation that would show whether their own allegations againstfamiliesarecorrectandscientific.IfMPEECistoadvancemedicalscienceandprofessionaltreatmentofchildabuse,Iwonderwhythe

MPEEC Program Datacontinued from page 12



MPEECdoctorsareunwillingtolookatthecasesoferroneouscon-clusionswithintheirownfiles.

In fact, thebias against families inMPEEC isdramaticallydocu-mentedinonequarterlyreport,whichstates:

“JoanPernecke,ChiefoftheChildProtectionDivisionoftheCookCountyState’sAttorney’sOffice,requestedthatMPEECreportsmakeoneofthefollowingstatementsre-garding the medical opinion. She indicated the strongerlanguagewouldaidtheprosecutionofoffenders.• Preponderanceoftheevidence• Preponderanceoftheevidenceormoreprobablythan

not• Beyondareasonabledoubt.

The physicians said they would use this language whenpossible.However,theyexpressedreservationsabouttheirability to apply the language regularly given the compli-catednatureof childabuse trials andconcerns regardingliability.”6

Inshort,MPEECdoctorsarebeingtoldbyaState’sAttorneytousestrongerwording than theywouldordinarilyuse inorder tohavemoresuccessfulprosecutions.Theyaregoingalongwiththisprose-cutorialprogram.Atthesametimeastheyaretakingtheircuesfromprosecutors, MPEEC doctors are ignoring the information aboutthe71%oftheirowncasesthatinvolvenodocumentedabuse,whilecontinuingtotrainchildabusereporterstomorestronglystackthedeckagainstfamilies.Theyresistlookingattheirowndataandtheirtrackrecords.

Inmybook,thisishardlyan“unbiased”expertassessmentsystem.

6 Chicago Children’s Advocacy Center 4th quarter report FY09

MPEEC Program Datacontinued from page 13


rogationwasneversought.CamretaandAlford,withthesupportof28stateattorneysgeneralandseveralprosecutorgroups,askedtheSupremeCourttoreviewthedecisiondespitethefactthattheyhadnotbeenorderedtopayanydamages.TheSupremeCourt—whichrequiresfourvotestograntreview(andfivevotestoreverseadeci-sion)—agreedtohearthecase,includingthequestionsofwhetherthetraditionalrequirementsoftheFourthAmendmentapplytothequestioningofS.G.,andwhetherthecasecanevenbeconsideredaspresentingacaseorcontroversy.

The defendants Camreta and Alford argue that armed sheriffs orpolice and childprotection investigators need to be able to ques-tionchildreninpublicschoolsbecausetheirparents,includingnon-offendingparents,willrefusetoallowchildrentobequestionedathome. They argue that if an exception to the traditional require-mentsoftheFourthAmendment(i.e.,therequirementofawarrantsupportedby“probablecause,”acourtorder,exigentcircumstances,orparentalconsent) isnotrecognizedbytheCourt,childrenwhoaresexuallyabusedwillgounprotected.CitingtwoSupremeCourtprecedents thatdonotspeaktoanyauthorityof lawenforcementandchildprotectionauthoritiestocomeintoschoolsforanextend-edperiodof time toquestion children about theirhome life, thedefendantsargueforasweepingconstitutionalexceptionforchildabuse investigations. If these argumentswere acceptedby theSu-premeCourt, thedecisionwouldmake representationofchildrenandfamilieswhoarethetargetsofHotlinecallssignificantlymorechallenging.

IntheAlford/Camreta v. Greenecase,theinterrogationofS.G.wasegregiouslypoorlyconducted,violatingmany ifnotallnorms forreliableprofessionalinterviewsofchildren.Specificissuesregardinginterrogationinclude:

• thesheriffandinvestigatoradmittedly“seized”S.G.withoutcon-sentofherparentsorherself;theydidn’tbothertonotifySarahGreene,S.G.’smother,becausetheyassumedshewouldn’tallowtheinterrogation,butthatassumptionwasfalse;

• thesheriffandinvestigatorhadnoprobablecausetobelieveS.G.orhersisterhadbeensexuallyabused;theyhadonlyabaresuspi-cionofabuseduetostatementsthefather’sformeremployerand

hiswifehadattributedtoS.G.;

• inthecourseofquestioningS.G.,theofficerstoldthegirlinforma-tionaboutsexthatshedidnotknowbeforetheyquestionedher;

• S.G.receivedspecialeducationservices forcommunicationde-lays—afactthattheofficersdidn’tknowandwouldn’thavebeenabletolearnwithouttheconsentofS.G.’smother;

• initiallyduringthetwo-hourinterrogation,S.G.saidherfatheronlygaveher“goodtouches.”Buttheofficersdidn’tacceptheranswers and instead repeatedly said “that’s not it.” Finally, shegave them the answers they apparentlywanted: thather fatherhadtouchedherprivateareas.Afterthat,theylethergobacktoherclassroomandthenhome;

• S.G.wasseriouslytraumatizedbytheinterrogation;aftershegothome,shethrewupfivetimes!

• S.G.wasinterviewedandexaminedataChildAdvocacyCenterlater,whichfoundnoabuse,andso,whenthecasewentbeforeajudgeafewweekslater,thecaseconcerningS.G.wasdismissed.

Oregon’sownpolicies,adoptedaftertheinterrogationinthiscase,forbidanumberofthepracticestheofficersusedinquestioningS.G.

Within adayof theSupremeCourtdecision togrant review, theFamilyDefenseCenterstartedtoconsiderthecase’spotentialharm-fulimpactonchildrenandfamiliesinAmericaandbegantoformu-lateaplanfortakingonamajorroleinsupportingthechildrenandfamilies’positionbeforetheSupremeCourt.

ByOctober15,2010,aplanwasformingtoprovidetheplaintiffsex-cellentlegalrepresentationandsupportfromawiderangeofgroupswhocanfullybrieftheissuesbeforetheSupremeCourtandaddresstheimplicationsofarulinginthedefendantsfavor.ThankstoeffortsbytwoCalifornialawyers,DonnieCoxandDennisAtchley,ourownNationalHonoraryAdvisoryBoardmemberCarolynKubitschek—oneofthenation’spremierchildprotectionlitigators—wasenlistedtobecometheleadcounselfortheplaintiffmotherandchild.Thecase had previously been handled through the proceedings in thefederaldistrictcourtandNinthCircuitbyasolocriminaldefenselawyernamedMikelMiller.MilleragreedwithCoxandAtchleythatthecomplexissuesbeforetheSupremeCourtshouldbehandledbyan attorney likeMs.Kubitschek,whohas severaldecadesofhigh

Supreme Courtcontinued from page 1

15 Vol.4,No.2

levelprecedent-settingworkinfederalcivilrightscasesandappealsinthechildprotectionarea.Ms.Kubitschek’screditsincludedozensofmajorfederalcivilrightsprecedents,includingValmonte v. Bane,whichwasthechief federalprecedenttotheFDC’scaseDupuy v. McEwen,andNicholson v. Scoppetta(seeFamily DefenderIssue#3,p.6),onbehalfofdomesticviolencevictimswhowerelosingcustodyoftheirchildrensimplybecausetheywerevictimsthemselves.ShehasbeenamemberofourownNationalHonoraryAdvisoryBoardfrom its inception. And in 1999, the Family Defense Center Ex-ecutiveDirectorhaddrafted an amicus(friendofthecourt)briefinsupportofMs.Kubitschek’sclientsinTenenbaum v. Williams, aSecondCircuit case involv-ingasearchandseizureofakindergartenchild.

SimultaneouslywithrecruitingMs.Ku-bitschektorepresenttheplaintiffs,CoxandAtchleyaskedFamilyDefenseCen-ter Executive Director Diane Redleafto assume responsibility for coordinat-ing amicus briefing in support of theplaintiffs.Amicusbriefstypicallyaddresspolicy implicationsof thepositions theparties are taking and expand on con-sequences of factual and legal issuesthat are brought into play by the case.For example, given that the interviewof S.G. violated numerous professionalstandards for proper interviewing andimpacts upon education of children,the argument about thesepoints are classic ones fordevelopmentinanamicusbrief.Dianedidn’tneedmuchpersuadingtotakeonthis central role inpreparing thecase forhearingby theSupremeCourt, as she had already begun to think about what the amicusbriefingplanforthecaseshouldbe;shehadfrequentlycollaboratedwithCarolynKubitschekinthepast;shehadtwicebeforecoordi-natedmajoramicusbriefingeffortsinSupremeCourt.ThankstotheFDC’s excellentprobono representationprogramwithmajor lawfirms,itwasrelativelyeasytoenlistfirmstohelpwiththebriefing;andwhileverysmall,theFamilyDefenseCenterhadsupportandconnectionstogroupsallacrossthecountrywhocouldbeenlistedin thiseffort.Giventheurgent importanceof thecase to familiesacrossAmerica,Dianedidn’thesitatetoagreetothischallengingroleandresponsibility.Thatwasfortunate,becauseiftheFamilyDefense

Centerhadn’tbeenwillingtotakethisroleon,itisnotclearthatanyotherorganizationorattorneywouldhaveacceptedthechallengeorstartedtoworksoquicklytogetamicusbriefstogetherthatcouldpositivelyaffecttheCourt’sdeliberations.

TimeframesforbriefingtheissuesinGreeneareveryshort,however,andunlikethedefendants(whohavehadoverayeartopreparetheirpitchtotheSupremeCourt),theplaintiffswillhavelessthanthreemonthstoorganizeandsubmittheirbriefs.Butalreadyoveradozenamicusbriefs,writtenbymajorlawfirmsandpublicinterestorgani-zations,arebeingpreparedtosupporttheplaintiffs.

Advocates fromacross thecountryarequicklybecomingawareoftheimportanceofAlford/Camreta v. Greenetotherightsofchildren

andfamiliestoprotecttheirprivacyandthesecurityoftheirfamilylife.Eachday,theFamilyDefenseCenterreceivesnewcallsandemailswithoffersofsignificanthelp, including many offers from lawprofessors, legal clinics, solo lawyers,and law students. Organizations thatworkonbehalfofchildrenhavestartedto recognize that children’s interests arenotservedbyallowingpoliceandchildprotection investigatorsunrestricted ac-cesstotheminschool.AsofthedatethisissueoftheFamily Defender isgoingtoprint,over12briefsforamiciarebeingdrafted, thanks in large measure to theeffortsoftheFamilyDefenseCenterandthemanyattorneys,firms, lawstudentsandothervolunteerstheCenterhasen-listedinveryshortorder.

FinancialsupporthasalsobeenreceivedfromtheEfroymsonFoundationtohelp

defraythestaffandadministrativecoststhis large-scale legaleffortentails.Additionalfinancialsupportfortheseeffortsremainsurgent-lyneededsothattheFamilyDefenseCentercancontinuetostafftheSupremeCourtworkwhilemaintainingitshigh-qualityindividuallegalservicescaseloadandprobonoprogram.

Theplaintiffs’briefsarenowdueonJanuary10andamicusbriefsaredueJanuary18.Anargumentdatehasnotyetbeenset,butitislikelyargumentwillbeheldintheSupremeCourtattheendofFeb-ruaryorinMarch.Inpreparation,theFamilyDefenseCenterhopestohostaChicago“mootcourt”argumentandcocktailreceptionforMs.KubitschekinFebruary(pleasecontacttheofficeorcheckourwebsitefordetails).

Organizations that work on behalf of children have started to recognize that children’s interests are not served by allow-ing police and child pro-tection investigation un-restricted access to them in school.

ingofthefinalmonitoringreport,theFDCbeganintensivenego-tiationswithDCFStoestablishpoliciesandproceduresthatwouldbringDCFSintocompliancewiththefederalcourtsorders.BytheendofSeptember2010,agreementonallmajorpointsinissuehadbeenachieved.Revisednoticesandpolicieswillbe issuedearly in2011, andnew training forDCFS investigators—with substantialinputfromFDCstaff—willberequiredofallinvestigatorseffective

2011aswell.Inadditiontothepointslistedabove,DCFSagreedtoamend itsprocess fordeemingemployees“unsuitable” toworkwithchildrenbyallowinganewprocessforreviewandwaiverofan“unsuitable”determination.

Asthisnewslettergoestoprint,thefinalmotiontoresolveDupuyisbeingfiled.OnlyifDCFSsubstantiallychangesitsrulesandpro-ceduresinawaythatviolatestheDupuycourtorderswilltheFDChavetherighttoreturntofederalcourtintheDupuycase.After13yearsoflitigation,itiswonderfultofinallyreacharesolutionoftheclaimsofindividualswhoworkwithchildrentodueprocess.

Supreme Courtcontinued from page 14

Dupuy Casecontinued from page 1


The Family Defense Center

Alford/Camreta v. GreeneissuddenlytheFamilyDefenseCen-ter’smajorfocusofattention.(See front page story). That’sbe-

causeitisn’teverydaythattheSupremeCourtdecidestohearacasethatdirectlyaddressestherightsofchildrenandfamiliesinthechildprotectionsystem.

Notonlyisn’tCamretaeverycase,it’sa“onceinalifetime”caseforlawyerswhohaveworkedfordecadesonchildprotectionreform.The last case to touchupon childprotectionpolicies related toinvestigations was DeShaney v. Winnebago County in 1989. But

Camreta reachesmuchmoredirectly toourday-to-day practices of advising and repre-senting families who suddenly find them-selvesinthemiddleofachildabuseinvesti-gationandneedtoknowtheirrights.

WhytheSupremeCourt’sinterestinGreene?Unlike Dupuy II, in which the Family De-fense Center in 2008 asked the SupremeCourttoreverseadecisionthatdeniedfami-lies rights to remain together in the face of

coercive policies and practices, the Court in Greene decided toreviewacasewhenaskedtooverturnadecisionthatextendedcon-stitutionalprotectionstochildrenandfamilies.WhydidtheSu-premeCourtturndownthechancetoreviewDupuybutacceptedtheinvitationtoreviewCamreta?

Thegrantofreviewmaybeabadomen;manycommentatorspre-dictthattheSupremeCourtwilleviscerateconstitutionalprotec-tionsratherthanextendthemhere.Wedoknowthatitismucheasier for theState togetSupremeCourt reviewofdecisions itdoesn’t likethanforchildrenandfamiliestogetreviewofdeci-sionsthathurtthem.Thatdoesn’tautomaticallymean,however,thatthejusticeswhowanttoreviewthedecisionsstatesdon’tlikewillsidewiththemafterhearingtheissuesfully.TheGreenecaseisoneinwhichtraditionalleft/rightantagonismdoesnotapply;conservativeandlibertariangroupsareamongthestrongestsup-portersofthestrictapplicationoftheFourthAmendmentwhenitcomestochildrenandfamilyrights.Fearofabaddecisionfromthe SupremeCourt cannot stopus fromfighting for the rightswebelieveneedtoberecognizedtoprotectchildrenanddefendfamilies.

Camretapresentsuswithmanyopportunities,andmore thanalittleanxietyabouthowthoseopportunitieswillplayout.Itpres-ents the opportunity to win constitutional protections for chil-drenwhofaceintrusivepoliceandchildprotectionquestioning.It presents the opportunity to secure parents’ rights to consenttostateactionsinvolvingtheirchildren.ItaffordsthechanceforustoeducatetheSupremeCourtandthepublicabouttheissuesweworkon andwhy theymatter somuch. It givesus the op-portunity toorganizeavastcoalitionof lawyers,policymakers,advocates,childandfamilyprofessionals,educatorsandgroupstosupportthecauseofjusticeforchildrenandfamilieswhoarebe-

ingharmedbymisguidedchildprotectionintervention.

ThisisalsoanopportunityfortheFamilyDefenseCentertostandasaleaderinadvocatingforAmericanfamilies.NolongerwillwehavetoexplaintoourfriendsinCalifornia,NewYork,Pennsyl-vania,KentuckyandMinnesota—among themanyother stateswhereoursupportersreside—whytheworkofatinylawofficeinChicagomakesadifferencetofamiliesintheirstatetoo.

Itisanopportunitytobeattheforefrontofthefightforjustice.This case isn’t an easy one, nor is the outcome on our side as-sured—orevennecessarilylikely.Butnooneeversaidthatfight-ingforjusticeiseasy.Wehavetoworkourhardestforeverypos-siblevote toget to themagicnumberofvoteson theSupremeCourt—five.ChildrenandfamiliesdeserveourhelpinthehighestCourt in the land.AndI’mespeciallyproud thatwehavebeenabletosay“yes”totheopportunityofalifetimetomakeadiffer-ence—andproudthat,becauseoftheworkofagroupofsupport-ersandstaffwhobelievedintheFamilyDefenseCenterwhenwestartedjustfiveyearsago,wearenowinanepicfightforjusticethatweareabletolead.

Yoursinthestruggleforjustice,

Diane

Message from the Executive Director

When Unprecedented Opportunities Come, Lawyers for Families Must be Ready

the family defendervivek sankaran university of michigan law school robert schwartz juvenile law...

Documents