Family Advocacy and RETALIATION

There has been some discussion regarding family advocacy and its effect on client families. As advocates, we have legitimate concerns that our advocacy does not bring a family to harm, yet, that we are able to effect positive results. This tightrope between doing too much or not doing enough requires a thorough knowledge of the applicable laws and policies before advancing a course of action.

The main purpose of Family Advocacy is to insure that the entire family is afforded all protections under the law, and that the services and practices employed by state agencies and providers conform to written law and policy. Families would not need advocacy services if this were, in fact, happening.

As a result, we find ourselves in a confrontational situation with the agencies, courts and providers. They don't like us bypassing confidentiality laws with the permission of the family and looking over their shoulders and pointing out their mistakes, be they honest or malicious errors. Therefore, it stands to reason, that they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. And since, historically, they have demonstrated no compunctions against violating rights or laws in their dealings with parents, we can expect them to do the same regarding Family Advocacy. We make their job much more difficult by exposing their secrets, which is our intent. It is the natural tendency for people to protect themselves from exposure, especially if they think they are doing the right thing.

They are not completely stupid. The realize they can do nothing to advocates, therefore they exercise their unquestioned control over our mutual clients, further victimizing them. This is often manifested through retaliation. This retaliation takes the form of negative reports to the court regarding the parent’s attitude, compliance, cooperation and more. It is also manifested by withholding contact with the child, alienating the child from the parent, making false reports against the parent to various government agencies (police, housing authority, food stamps, etc.). Parents and advocates may be targeted for abusive and inappropriate civil, criminal or administrative legal actions against them. Or the retaliation can stoop into cruder methods, including harassing phone calls, surveillance, breakins and vandalism.

Most respondent parent attorneys have proven incapable of adequately defending their clients against those kinds of attacks.

By way of example, I would like to describe two very similar cases.

1. Case one is Kay Henson. She stood her ground regarding her rights, demanding that the agencies and providers conform to law, policy and professional standards. She has employed the services and largely followed the advice of the American Family Advocacy Center. She assigned a power of attorney before a gag order issued to circumvent any communication problems (gag orders have been found to be unconsitutional but these corrupt judges don’t care). She assigned guardianship of her minor children when seizure was imminent. She has been accused of being uncooperative, having a bad attitude and being in denial. In spite of that, her CHIPS (dependency) case is closed, and all but two of her children are home. Having failed at the dependency stage, the state successfully colluded with the father to keep her two older children out of her home. They had to violate her rights and the rights of her advocate to do that. All these violations were well documented, giving grounds for legal remedies to Kay and her advocate. They are also attempting to abuse their authority under probation to punish her for her association with AFAC and for standing up for her rights. This retaliation is also well documented and protected under the Bill of Rights. [Excerpts from Profane Justice, Second Edition _ the First Amendment bars retaliation for protected speech, association and advocacy; petitioning the government for redress of grievances, religion and publication of information related to your case. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S .711; Malik v. Arapahoe County DSS 191 f.3d 1306 (10th cir. 1999); Casa Maria, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1992); Monsky v. Moraghan, 127F.3d 243 (2nd Cir. 1997); Rizzo V. Dauson, 778 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1985); Valot v. Southeast Local School District Board of Education, 107 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. 1997); Perry V. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972); Tarhowski V. Cty. of Lake, 775 F.2d 173 (7th Cir. 1985); Marshall v. Allen, 984 F.2d 787 (7th Cir. 1993); City of Dallas V. Staglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989); Roberts v. US Jaycees, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984); Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473 (9th cir. 1988); Clark V. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d. 89 (D.C. Cir, 1984); Crowder v. Sinvard, 884 F.2d 804 (5th. Cir. 1987); Swekel v. City of River Rough, 119 F.3d 1259 (6th Cir. 1997); McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir. 1984); Buise v. Hudhind, 584 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1978); Smart V. Board of Trustees, 34 F.3d 432 (7th, Cir. 1994); DeLoachn v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1990).]

2.. Case Two is Mom and Son. This case is highly publicized nationwide, the story having been published on Good Morning America, the New York Times as well as Colorado papers and AP, and I have been solicited by Dateline, 60 Minutes II and Primetime to have the mother appear on their shows. I will not reveal the name of this mother at her request. You see, she has cooperated fully with DHS. Her child was removed without evidence that she had harmed him. She has broken her association with AFAC, she has obeyed the gag order and her treatment plan. I spoke with her recently, she had a hearing and they are saying she is not in compliance with her treatment plan .

They look like they want to give her son to the hostile grandparents. She has done everything they asked, including dissociating herself from radical advocacy groups and her son is still not home. They say she is unccoperative, having a bad attitude and is in denial (sound familiar?). He was supposed to have been returned home in July. It didn't happen. They have done the identical thing as in Kay's case - using my website against this mother - even though she is no longer associated with AFAC. She cooperated and she is facing termination of parental rights.

The point is, clearly the only distinction between parents who stand up for their rights and make good use of competent advocacy services have a better chance of prevailing in the end, AND are better able to seek remedies for violations of their rights, etc. The indisputable message here is, cooperation is no guarantee of getting your children back or being treated better or getting favorable reports by agencies and providers.

It is important to distinguish who is actually causing the harm to families. Based on the case law cited above, a person has the protected right to free association, including the right to associate with policital or advocacy groups; freedom of religion, and this doesn't mean state approved religions and it does mean the right to employ reasonable spanking if that is a devoutly held religious belief; freedom of speech - including speaking to the media, the public and advocacy or political groups; freedom of the press - including the right to publish a web page no matter how critical it is of state agencies or providers; the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, including filing complaints against therapists, GALs and lawyers and judges and probation officers, filing lawsuits, AND demanding due process in his dependency case of the presiding court. Retaliation against a person's exercise of those rights is a violation of those rights. In dependency cases, this retaliation often takes the form of negative and derogatory reports to the court, especially about activities that are unrelated to a person's ability to properly care for his children, his compliance with a court-order treatment plan, or the merits of the case. The merits of the case do not include your attitude about your persecutors or your failure to kiss the right butts in the right way.

As an example: A caseworker or GAL or CASA tells the court that "mom is hanging out with this radical Colorado group and getting advice from them” which supports their assertion that mom has a bad attitude and that she is focusing on the wrong issues. She continues to be in denial, and oh, by the way, this radical group has published confidential information from this case on the Internet. Mom's association with this organization (or these people) are hurting her case and “we recommend that the children not be returned until her attitude improves and she ceases all contact with this group."

This is clear retaliation. These kinds of negative reports do not reflect on parenting skills or treatment issues or the merits of the case or a parent’s compliance with a court-ordered treatment plan, but rather, focus on the legal exercise of protected rights. These negative reports are nothing more than controlling adult political and civil rights activities by the removal of children and/or termination of parental rights. This practice (accusing activist parents of being unfit) was practiced during the civil rights movement and was ultimately condemned, but has resurfaced with the Family Rights movement.

It is indisputable that parents are being harmed by this activity, but Family Rights advocacy and activist groups are also being harmed. Parents become too frightened to associate with the very organizations that can provide unparalleled support and guidance and they can even become convinced that they don't have any rights. These groups, including the American Family Advocacy Center, are being blamed for the parent's losing their children, even though they have no control over the parents, or the caseworkers and are not even parties to the case. Groups report that they can't keep their membership growing, or that the turnover is very high, and that these negative reports are primarily to blame.

The key to success, as is being demonstrated in our two example cases, is that if you or your parents show any weakness, you are doomed. They can sense this weakness and will go for the jugular on both of you! Both the parents and the advocates must be willing to endure these attacks and throw it back in their face until THEY are the ones who become afraid and back down. To be successful, you must KNOW THE LAW. And don't let those wimpy respondent parent attorneys back you down, they don't that much about rights, trust me.

It boils down to the question "What is the harmful effect on this family, including the children, and WHO is causing that harm?" The agents of the state, in retaliating against parents and refusing to reunify the family because of the parents' POLITICAL and CIVIL RIGHTS activities, are solely responsible for harming the parents and the children. Not the advocates. Not the parents. ONLY the agents of the state. If there was no retaliation, there would be no harmful effect. Political and civil rights activism by parents does not, in and of itself, present any risk to a child's safety or well-being. It is not a reflection of parenting ability. If it was, none of our elected officials or civil rights leaders should be allowed to keep their children.

During the Civil Rights movement, children were removed from civil rights activists in an effort to control the parents legal political activism. This practice has been historically decried, and yet it has resurfaced in child protection cases. We call it The control of adult political and civil rights behavior through the removal of children and/or the denial of family reunification. Shame on the state for using our children as hostages to control legal adult activities!

Don't buy into the propaganda that Family Advocates are hurting parent's cases unless the advocate is advising the parent not to comply with a treatment plan after adjudication or some other similar patently harmful advice. Competent Family Advocacy is a clear threat to child protection abuses, and to the ability of the state to traffic in children for Federal profit under the guise of child protection.