amicus brief - carolyn hill
Post on 02-Jun-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
1/44
I N THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
I N THE I NTEREST OF S .J.H.-J., A MINOR
APPEAL OF C .H.
SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO . 1950 EDA 2014
I N THE I NTEREST OF A .O.H.-J., A MINOR SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO . 1954 EDA 2014
APPEAL OF C .H. (CONSOLIDATED )
IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANT C.H. _________
AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF THE EVERY MOTHER IS A WORKINGMOTHER NETWORK, PROFESSOR DOROTHY E. ROBERTS, CHILD
WELFARE ORGANIZING PROJECT, NATIONAL ADVOCATES FORPREGNANT WOMEN, AND STATEWIDE PARENT ADVOCACY NETWORK
_________
Phoebe Jones, PhDEvery Mother is a Working Mother
Network
c/o Crossroads Womens Center33 Maplewood MallPhiladelphia PA 19144(215) 848-1120
Dorothy E. Roberts, JDProfessor of Law and Sociology,University of Pennsylvania
3501 Sansom Street,Philadelphia, PA 19104(215) 573-2155
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
2/44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTABLE OF CONTENTS iSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 15ARGUMENT 16I The best interest of the children is served by permitting them to live
with their aunt and not by abruptly removing them from their homewithout good cause. 16
-
court erred by failing to consider critical evidence of family bond-ing and unjust removal- court erred by hearing misleading and erroneous testimony includ-
ing faulty parent capacity evaluations and other measures and byfailing to hear critical testimony to counter inaccurate aspersionsabout CHs character
II The best interest of the children is not served by prioritizing financesor educational level and legitimizing social biases of government agen-cies and their contractors. 24- court erred in not exercising oversight over an agency and its affili-
ates
III It is in the best interest of the children both immediate and long-term toreturn them to their aunt and re-integrate them into their extendedfamily 28- court erred in failing to hear critical evidence regarding reunifica-
tionCONCLUSION 32
APPENDIX A INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAEAPPENDIX BCERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE AS TO NUMBER OF WORDS
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
3/44
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Every Mother is a Working Mother Network and other amici respectfully submit
this brief in support of C.H.s appeal of the decision denying her adoption petition
of A.H. and S.H.. We wish to bring additional information to the attention of the
court that relates to caregiving and bonding, the value to children of a caring ex-
tended family and community, how caregivers and families of color fare in the
child welfare system, how discrimination on the basis of gender, race, income and
educational level in general runs counter to the best interests of children, and how
these issues play out in this case.
Amicus curiae, Every Mother is a Working Mother Network (EMWM) is a grass-
roots non-professional advocacy and support group of caregivers, family advocates
and experts in Philadelphia who are familiar with this case and the issues that
surround it. EMWM campaigns to establish that raising children and other care-
giving is work fundamental to society which has economic value, entitling carers
to support and resources. Since the passage of federal welfare reform laws in
1996, extreme poverty among women-headed households has nearly tripled and
public funds have shifted from direct support to families to support for child wel-
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
4/44
2
fare agencies. In response, EMWM coordinates DHS Give Us Back Our Children
in Philadelphia, a self-help support group of mothers, grandmothers, other family
members, former social workers, foster parents and supporters together working
against the unjust removal of children from their families by the Philadelphia
Department of Human Services (DHS), not because of abuse or neglect but be-
cause of poverty and lack of resources, displaying sex, race, disability and class
biases in the system. [Additional information about amicus curiae EMWM is set
forth in Appendix A.]
Amicus curiae, Dorothy E. Roberts, an acclaimed scholar of race, gender and the
law, joined the University of Pennsylvania as its 14 th Penn Integrates Knowledge
Professor with a joint appointment in the Department of Sociology and the Law
School where she also holds the inaugural Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mosell
Alexander chair. Her path-breaking work in law and public policy focuses on
urgent contemporary issues in health, social justice, and bioethics, especially as
they impact the lives of women, children and African-Americans. [Additional
information about amicus curiae Dorothy E. Roberts is set forth in Appendix A.]
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
5/44
3
Amicus curiae, Child Welfare Organizing Project (CWOP) is a self-help and
advocacy organization of parents who have had contact with the New York City
child welfare system. Most of our staff and board of directors are parents who have
had children placed in foster care, succeeded in reuniting their own families, and
now use this experience both to help other parents facing similar challenges, and to
organize for system change. [Additional information about amicus curiae CWOP
is set forth in Appendix A.]
Amicus curiae, National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) works to secure
the human and civil rights, health and welfare of all women, focusing particularly
on pregnant and parenting women, and those who are most vulnerable to state
control and punishment - low income women, women of color, and drug-using
women. Through legal advocacy, organizing, public policy development, and
public education, NAPW advances legal and human rights for all women and
families. NAPW is actively involved in ongoing court challenges to punitive
reproductive health and drug policies, including child welfare policies that unnec-
essarily disrupt families and disproportionately burden people of color. [Additional
information about amicus curiae NAPW is set forth in Appendix A.]
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
6/44
4
Amicus curiae, The Statewide Parent Advocacy Network (SPAN) is New Jerseys
one-stop for families of children at greatest risk, whether due to poverty, disability
or special health/mental health needs, discrimination based on race, ethnicity,
national origin, or language, involvement in the child welfare or juvenile justice
systems, or other special circumstances. SPAN is the recipient of an array of more
than two dozen federal and state grants that enable SPAN to serve as a one-stop
shop for families to obtain information, training, technical assistance, advocacy,
and support on issues involving families rights in intersecting systems of educa-
tion, healthcare, child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health throughout the
State of New Jersey. [Additional information about amicus curiae SPAN is set
forth in Appendix A.]
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This brief has two goals: first, we explain the context of child welfare decision-
making which has a history of bias, illegality, unaccountability and unprofessional-
ism (Statement of the Case); and second, we show how this context directly relates
to this appeal and helps to explain how the Adoption Court erroneously applied the
law and against the best interest of A.H. and S.H. (Argument).
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
7/44
5
A. The History of Bias in Child Welfare Decision Making
The Adoption Court decision to deny custody of A.H. and S.H. to CH, the maternal
aunt who is a low-income Black single mother, and to award the children to a more
distant family member in a higher economic status reflects a bias that has historical
roots in the child welfare system. The first in the nation, the New York Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was known simply as The Cruelty in
working class families in New York. Orphan Trains in the early 1900s transported
92,000 children (mainly Irish and German, 51.5% of whom had a living parent) to
work on farms in the west. 1 Native American children were forced into white
homes and institutions as part of government policy for over a century until the
1970s. 2 From its inception the child welfare system was more concerned with
punishing families than with strengthening them.
In 1958, the Indian Adoption Project resulted in large numbers of Native American
children being removed from their families and placed in non-Native-American
1 Hasday, J. E. (2002). Parenthood Divided: a Legal History of the Bifurcated Law of Parent Rela-tions. The Georgetown Law Journal , 90(2), 299-386.
2 Dorothy Roberts, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Civitas Books, 2002), p248-249
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
8/44
6
homes, which resulted in high rates of suicide, disruption of tribal culture, and a
destruction of some tribes. In Senate hearings on the Indian Child Welfare Act in
1978, Indians presented evidence that between one-quarter to one-third of all
Indian children had been separated from their families. 3 Referring to this and the
forcing of Native American children into boarding schools in the late 1800s and
early 1900s, The goal was to strip away the Indian identity, take kids away from
their families and away from their communities so they could have a start at a
modern life , Utah Court of Appeals Judge William Thorne, himself Native Amer-
ican, told an American Bar Association gathering of family lawyers. Ive seen the
effect on these kids and I remember the effect when I signed those termination
papers 34 years ago. Now I see some of those children come back and I wish I
could take that back. I wish I could impose a requirement of looking for solutions
before taking children. I guess what Im asking you to do is to redeem my failings,
help parents keep their kids. Fix their problems while they keep their kids. Its
what the children need . 4
3 Ibid.4 Third National Parent Attorneys Conference, Washington DC July 11, 2013.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
9/44
7
B. Race and Income in Todays Child Welfare System
While these were some of the worst expressions of bias against poor and working
class families and families of color, now discredited as shameful chapters in child
welfare history in the United States, the tendency to equate higher income with
the best interest of the child persists in child welfare decision-making. Many
social workers and judges continue to import social biases into their decision
makingeffectively engaging in a form of social engineering of familieson the
mistaken belief that white and/or middle class homes are better for children than
homes they may come from, and confusing poverty with neglect persists. Shock-
ingly, the bond between caregiver and child is often dismissed.
As income gaps have widened and the levels of poverty and extreme poverty
(living on less than $2 a day per person) have grown to epic proportions, so too has
the bias against low-income women of color. Between 1996-2011, the number of
children living in extreme poverty doubled from 1.4 million to 2.8 million, and
extreme poverty rates tripled for female-headed households. 5
5 National Poverty Center, University of Michigan, Policy Brief #28: Extreme Poverty in the UnitedStates, 1996 to 2011
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
10/44
8
Since the passage of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcil-
iation Act in 1996 which ended mothers and their childrens entitlement to cash
assistance and enabled welfare reform nationally, and also the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997, which shifted the focus of child welfare policy towards
child protection and away from family reunification, the number of children
taken from their families increased for nearly a decade until an all-time high of
307,000 in 2005; on any given day, more than 600,000 children are in the foster
care system, about three times as many as in 1982. 6 In 1983, federal child welfare
funding for services for families was $0.40 for every $1 for foster care 7. Now that
figure has dropped to $0.07 per dollar 8, as the child welfare industry has skyrocket-
ed. Black women are the fastest growing segment of the prison population. In
some places 70% of prisoners had been in the foster care system as children 9. 10
million minor children in the US have experienced parental incarceration, and
6 US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Admin-istration on Children, Youth, and Families, Childrens Bureau. Trends in Foster Care and Adoption: FFY2002 FFY 2013. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/trends_fostercare_adoption2013.pdf
7 General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services,
Letter Report, 9/26/95, GAO/HEHS-95-208, cited in Dorothy Roberts, Shattered Bonds: The Color ofChild Welfare (Basic Civitas Books, 2002), p1428 US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Legislative Affairs and Budget, ACF All Purpose Table (APT) FY 2013 and FY 2014.http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/acf-all-purpose-table-apt
9 Family Court Review, April 2010. Cited by Community Coalition, Are Our Children Being Pushedinto Prison? Infographic: http://www.cocomovement.org/2012/06/are-our-children-being-pushed-into-
prison/
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
11/44
9
children of mothers in prison are five times more likely to be placed in foster care
than children of imprisoned fathers. 10 80% of women in prison are mothers.
These laws ushered in a punitive system that has devastated Black and low-income
communities, and has built an industry on the traumatic removal of children from
their families. 11 Agencies have a financial incentive to fill beds. They operate
with little oversight. When the state of Illinois, as a result of a law suit, changed the
financing so that agencies were equally rewarded for returning children to their
homes as for keeping them in care, the caseload dropped from more than 50,000 in
1997 to 15,575 as of November 2010, and as the foster care population has de-
clined, child safety has improved. 12
In Philadelphia, the poorest city of its size in the country with the highest level of
extreme poverty and a majority of people of color, the figures are worse. DHS
here removes children at the highest rate for a city of its size in the country. In
Pennsylvania in 2005, 49% of children in foster care were Black, whereas Black
10 Welfare Warriors, Prison Moms Fight for Their Children Behind Bars, Mother Warriors Voice ,September 2014.
11 Dorothy Roberts, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Civitas Books, 2002), p104-113
12 Cited in National Coalition for Child Protection Reform Issue Paper 12: Financial Incentives, p2
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
12/44
10
children made up only 13% of the population for the same period, and Black
children were reunified with their families only 58% of the time, compared with
66% overall and 72% for white children. 13 Poverty, race and child removal are
deeply interconnected.
C. Ethical Conflicts and Bias in Parent Psychological Evaluations
In a qualitative study of Michigans child welfare system, a review discovered that
many social workers negatively characterized or labeled African American fami-
lies and youth and failed to fairly assess or appreciate their unique strengths and
weaknesses . 14 Removal of children is often based on Parent Capacity Evaluations.
According to Prof. Roberts,
"The psychological evaluation, in particular, played an important role in delay-
ing the mothers' reunification with their children. It is common for agencies to
require parents to be evaluated and counseled by state-paid therapists throughout
the time their children are in foster care and for therapists' reports to figure
13 US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, ChildWelfare Outcomes 2002-2005: Report to Congress. Pennsylvania data.
14 Dorothy E. Roberts, Child Protection as Surveillance of African American Families, Journal ofSocial Welfare and Family Law (forthcoming 2014).
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
13/44
11
prominently in the parents' file. Psychological probing by a battery of specialists
is bound to turn up some anxiety, hostility, depression, or improper attitude, es-
pecially when the subject has gone through the traumatic and frustrating experi-
ence of losing her children. The psych evaluation also provides a surreptitious
way of keeping custody of children because of poverty without saying it. In
some assessments, parents' financial problems were interpreted as a symptom of
a deeper psychological deficiency. A parent's willingness to raise children de-
spite economic difficulties supposedly revealed profound irresponsibility or de-
lusion that was damaging to children. How could a mentally balanced person
think she could raise a child without a roof over their heads or a decent source of
income? Child protective authorities could justify detaining children because of
this psychological weakness instead of poverty itself."
A 1990 audit of the child welfare department in Santa Clara County, CA, noted
the economic leverage the department has over evaluators: "A potential exists,"
the auditors found, "that county counsel and the social worker will select evalua-
tors who have a history of supporting the position of the department in depend-
ency hearings". A Santa Clara grand jury that investigated these concerns heard
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
14/44
12
testimony about evaluators who were "blacklisted" for failing to side with the
department. The department used admittedly incompetent therapists to evaluate
"less important" cases. Parents with enough resources and determination can
obtain independent evaluations that contradict the agency-solicited report. But
judges are likely to place more weight on the "official" findings. Parents with
enough resources and determination can obtain independent evaluations that
contradict the agency-solicited report. But judges are likely to place more weight
on the "official" findings. 15
According to Dr. Matthew Johnson, professor of clinical psychiatry in Newark,
their negative assessments of parental ability are 'often scientifically questionable
and at times irresponsible.' Psychologists sometimes testify against parents
without ever having examined them, basing their conclusions entirely on case-
worker reports. Others ignore tests that find nothing troubling in the parent's
personality, while focusing on a single evaluation that uncovered a pathological
tendency. 16
15 Dorothy Roberts, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Civitas Books, 2002), p40-4216 Matthew B. Johnson, "Examining Risks to Children in the Context of Parental Rights Termination
Proceedings", NY Univ Review of Law and Social Change 22 (1996). Cited in Dorothy Roberts, Shat-tered Bonds , p127
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
15/44
13
Families are up against a large bureaucracy and face an uphill battle to present the
facts, defend themselves and their children, and get the legal and professional help
they need. To justify their contracts, competing private agencies can require more
and more hoops for parents to jump through to get their children back, and often
treat parents as adversaries even though the US Supreme Court in Santosky v
Kramer found, until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents
share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relation-
ship. 17 Agencies such as the Support Center for Child Advocates, which do not
represent parents and whose Board consists of CEOs of major corporations, have
lawyers and legal help on staff, as well as access to lawyers from large law firms,
while parents and other family, treated as adversaries, either go without, or have
over-worked court appointed lawyers whom they may not even meet until minutes
before their hearing.
In a March 11, 2013 press release issued upon the introduction of Legislation to
Provide Legal Support to Parents, Guardians for Child Welfare Cases, Congress-
woman Gwen Moore wrote,
17 Santosky, 455 U.S .at 760
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
16/44
14
Professionals and parents agree that removing a child from his or her family
can be traumatic and foster care, in many cases, does a poor job of preparing
children for adulthood. For this reason, child welfare law is structured, through
federal law incentives, to limit removal of children from their home unless ab-
solutely necessary for the childs safety, and promotes their reunification with
their familyYet very little funding is designated towards ensuring that parents
especially low-income and minorities have quality legal representation
throughout all stages of a child welfare case Child outcomes improve and
courts function more effectively when all parties have quality legal representa-
tion. This legislation gives parents, alongside officials and judges, a voice
when the best interests of their child are at stake. 18
These issues all come into play in this case. It was because of bias, devaluing of
bonding and one-on-one care, financial incentives, abuse of power, and the initial
lack of legal representation and court oversight that C.H. lost custody of the chil-
dren she was caring for who had bonded with her. This case continues because of
the determination of a loving aunt and extended family who, having intimate
18 http://gwenmoore.house.gov/press-releases/gwen-moore-reintroduces-legislation-to-provide-legal-support-to-parents-guardians-for-child-welfare-cases
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
17/44
15
knowledge of all parties involved, are fighting for the best interest of these girls by
requesting their return to their aunt and who have gained the support of a distin-
guished pro-bono attorney committed to justice for this family.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I The best interest of the children is served by permitting them to live with
their aunt and not by abruptly removing them from their home without good
cause.
- court erred by failing to consider critical evidence of family bonding and unjust
removal
- court erred by hearing misleading and erroneous testimony including faulty
parent capacity evaluations and other measures and by failing to hear critical
testimony to counter inaccurate aspersions about C.H.s character
II. The best interest of the children is not served by prioritizing finances or
educational level and legitimizing social biases of government agencies and
their contractors.
- court erred in not exercising oversight over an agency and its affiliates
III It is in the best interest of the children both immediate and long-term to
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
18/44
16
return them to their aunt and re-integrate them into their extended family
- court erred in failing to hear critical evidence regarding reunification
ARGUMENT
The best interest of the children is served by permitting them to live with their
aunt and not by abruptly removing them from their home without good cause.
At the request of DHS, C.H. stepped in to care for two of her sisters children in
April and July 2011 when their parents, who eventually lost their parental rights,
were not able to care for them. C.H. provided love, full-time care, and the only
stability the children had known. The girls began to come out of their shells,
interact and bond with each other. C.H. worked closely with A.H. who had been in
a Spanish-speaking foster home to associate words with objects and to ask instead
of scream for what she wanted. All parties agreed the children were doing well
with C.H.. The home was a lively gathering point for the family, including chil-
dren, grandchildren, cousins, aunts and uncles. The children were part of large and
frequent family cookouts, birthday celebrations, neighborhood and church gather-
ings and outings. Tabor Services Adoption Supervisory Reports notes A.H.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
19/44
17
resides in the home with her young sister with whom she is very close and bonded
to.A.H. has formed a loving bond with CHs older teen granddaughter who
resides in the home. A.H. views BH as an older sister caregiver and will often look
to her for support. The interactions are loving and appropriate and the family
will often gather for holidays and dinnersShe appears to be forming an appro-
priate bond with [C.H.] and appears loved and comfortable within the home .
C.H. and the children attended church every Sunday where they were part of a
Christian church community. C.H. was working with Tabor Services on the pa-
perwork for adoption [appendix 2]. All clearances and other items on the adoption
check-off list had been obtained and the paperwork was being updated to reflect
this when in October 2011, Lutheran Family Services took over the contract.
C.H. was feeding the girls dinner on April 3, 2012 when the Lutheran social work-
er, who had called to say she would like to come by to talk, arrived with two car
seats and removed the children from C.H.s home. There was no accusation of
abuse or neglect, no warning, no court order, no process to prepare the children,
and no chance to object to or change this course of action.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
20/44
18
The court order came a week later when the court was told erroneously by DHS
and its new contractor that CH had mental health problems, was being evicted, had
cognitive issues, and did not have a high school diploma or a GED (the court
transcript has been denied to Counsel for C.H. so this is what is remembered by
C.H. and the EMWM advocate who were allowed in the courtroom.) Although
allowed in, C.H. was not allowed to speak or defend herself from the false or
misleading accusations, nor was she provided a lawyer who could have represented
her interests as a pre-adoptive resource. These issues remain relevant as they were
brought up again in the June 11, 2014 adoption hearing and continue to misinform
the court as to the character and situation of C.H..
The issues raised in court in 2012 were:
- mental health problems cited in the Family Profile which consisted of a pre-
scription for Ambien sleeping pills to help her sleep after her mother had died, and
Zoloft for that sadness (which she never took).
- cognitive issues based on a Parent Capacity Evaluation. This evaluation, by Dr
Robins, has been thoroughly discredited by Dr Steven Samuel of Jefferson Medical
Hospital who was finally hired by DHS at the insistence of EMWM that an inde-
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
21/44
19
pendent and reputable psychologist conduct the evaluation. In 2012, Dr Samuel
conducted a series of evaluations over a period of 5 days, including with the chil-
dren, while the evaluation conducted by Dr Robins consisted of one 75 minute
session (not two sessions, as is claimed in the paperwork) with no children present.
Dr Samuel further evaluated C.H. on June 3, 2014. Dr Samuel testified in court as
to his findings that C.H. demonstrates the capacities, attributes, skills and abili-
ties that are essential for safe and adequate parenting of S.H. and A.H. and that
she is not diagnosed with a psychological disorder. Further that C.H. has a
good capacity to provide safety, permanency and an environment conducive to
develop and sustain an atmosphere of psychological well-being for S.H. and
A.H..
While her reading skills have been registered at the 5 th grade level, 21% of Ameri-
cans read below the 5 th grade level, the top 40 books read by American high
schoolers are 5 th grade level, 19% of high school graduates can't read at all, and the
average American reads between the 7 th and 9 th grade level. In Philadelphia, 20%
of adults lack even basic literacy skills. Some greats, like Sojourner Truth, were
not able to read at all. 19
19 The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years, Huffington Post, September 6, 2013.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
22/44
20
Of all the accusations raised in court (including false allegations that C.H. was
being evicted when she continues to live in the home she has lived in for 15 years),
only not having a high school diploma or GED was true. But this was known by
DHS before the children were placed in her care. DHS encouraged C.H. to get a
GED, with July as a suggested completion date, and C.H. took that up. Neverthe-
less, the children were removed in April, before C.H. had a chance to complete the
course. Regardless, nearly half of Philadelphians do not have a GED or high
school diploma, and this should not be a criterion for suitability for close relatives
seeking to adopt the childrens welfare is the criterion.
DHS was also aware of a minor drug conviction for cocaine use in 1999. This too
was brought up again in the adoption court hearing in June 2014, misleading the
court to believe that C.H. was a drug addict, and implying she may still be one,
when she used the substance infrequently for a short period of time after the death
of a daughter over 15 years ago. Her witnesses, if allowed, could have spoken to
that question.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
23/44
21
The court has been misinformed again and again, from the first hearing after the
children were removed in 2012 to the adoption hearing in 2014, about C.H.s
character, her status, her housing, her mental health, her right to a lawyer. There is
one criterion that was relevant but not brought up in court how the children were
doing in her care, and all parties agreed they were doing well.
While the issue of standing in court was litigated and C.H. was not allowed stand-
ing despite the evidence that showed she was in fact in the process of adoption and
Superior Court cited the wrong date in denying standing as a pre-adoptive re-
source, what happened in 2012 is still relevant as the court did not rule on whether
DHS violated its own procedures and its own stated ethics and practices by abrupt-
ly removing the children in the way they did which set in motion everything that
has come since. Nor has the court heard all the evidence.
DHS Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Garret Harley admitted at a June 21, 2012
meeting with EMWM that, If I had my druthers, even if the kids had to be re-
moved, I would not have done it in the way it was done. In a November 8, 2012
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
24/44
22
letter to EMWM, DHS Commissioner Ambrose wrote, Please be advised that
DHS is in support of moving [A.H. and S.H.] back to the home of [C.H.]. We are
in the process of working with our attorney to effectuate this result. Yet DHS
never acted on this.
The removal has disrupted the bonds the children had, not only with C.H., but with
the family and community they were part of, who have not been allowed to see
them since DHS placed them with the more distant relatives. The girls are no
longer part of the church they had been attending and placed in the home of a
different religion. The wife of the couple who was awarded custody in the lower
court is related by marriage to the childrens first cousin once removed (not second
cousin as stated in court), and not by blood. As figures show that only one third of
children have contact with their fathers after divorce, let alone adopted children of
second cousins once removed, should there ever be a split in the marriage, the
children would be further removed from their blood relatives. 20
20 Robert L. Lerman, Capabilities and Contributions of Unwed Fathers, Fragile Families. Volume 20 Number 2 Fall 2010.http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=73.&articleid=531§ionid=3655
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
25/44
23
C.H. and other family members had asked this family at the July 16, 2012 Family
Group Decision Making meeting to take the children as a temporary measure so
that the children would not have to be in foster care while the reunification process
with C.H. happened: We want the children back as soon as possible and want the
court hearing moved up . It was never the intention of the family that the children
be placed in their care on a permanent basis, despite how DHS later characterized
it. C.H. did the selfless thing, agreeing for the children to go with another family
member temporarily in order to get the children out of foster care. Yet it was used
against her to keep the children from her and to stop all visits with them, despite
their assurances otherwise, further traumatizing the children and stacking the deck
against C.H.s eventual reunification, so that length of time with the caregivers (not
a consideration by DHS when their contractor took them from her after a year)
could be used to bolster the DHS-picked family. C.H. was asked in court if she
would like to see what happened to her happen to them and if two wrongs make
a right, thus exposing that she (and the children) were in fact wronged. But what
is right is reuniting the children with her and the family they lost when they were
unjustly removed, and doing that caringly, not like they were torn from C.H..
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
26/44
24
II. The best interest of the children is not served by prioritizing finances or
educational level and legitimizing social biases of government agencies and
their contractors.
- court erred in not exercising oversight over an agency and its affiliates
As stated earlier, Rep Gwen Moore wrote, child welfare law is structured through
federal law incentives to limit removal of children from their home unless abso-
lutely necessary for the childs safety, and promotes their reunification with their
family .21 Mistakes of the past where racism and attitudes that poverty itself consti-
tutes abuse and neglect which led to Orphan Trains and Native American boarding
schools must not be repeated in this case, nor in other cases. While C.H. is the
aunt, not the mother, she is the closest living relative and her home was the only
stable home the children knew. Where they are placed now they are in daycare all
day rather than receiving the one-on-one attention they enjoyed while with C.H.,
who would have determined when and if it suited the girls to be placed in daycare,
not forced it on them despite that they had had such a traumatic beginning in life.
21 http://gwenmoore.house.gov/press-releases/gwen-moore-reintroduces-legislation-to-provide-legal-support-to-parents-guardians-for-child-welfare-cases
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
27/44
25
DHS and the Child Advocates have made an error in supporting for permanency a
family that has greater means but who are distant relatives, who have prevented the
children from seeing C.H., and who are a different religion from the one the chil-
dren were being raised in. Thus, they illegitimately decided what was best for the
children based on their own biases and values when the family, who know the
characters of both parties, have repeatedly stated they want the children with C.H..
While once those children were in their lives, many of the family have not seen the
children since the day DHS placed them with the more distant relatives.
The family has met with and written to DHS, circulated two petitions which 50
family members have signed calling for the return of the girls to C.H., come to
court on three separate occasions (one court reporter said it was the largest show-
ing of support he had ever seen), taken time off of work and other obligations to let
their wishes be known. The former DHS social worker assigned to the H. family,
Juditte Barrett, felt so strongly she wrote a letter, It is unfortunate if ones earning
potential and educational achievement are being used as reasons to rip children
from the arms of love, capable caretakers. My heart goes out to A.H. and S.H.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
28/44
26
who I am sure have been grieving the loss of their very loving caretaker . Yet
those wishes are ignored by DHS and not presented to the court. The family, C.H.
and the girls have not been allowed to have their day in court. While there can
certainly be cases which require DHS to make a judgment call, when families are
absent, that is not the case here. The family has been engaged and clear. They
have relied on a court that has so far taken the word of social workers and lawyers
over theirs, and which has in fact not even heard or considered their views.
The court made an error in not allowing the family members, pastor and advocates
to testify in court on behalf of C.H., although twelve of them were present and all
on the witness list. Once opposing counsel attempted to characterize or insinuate
that C.H. is an anxiety-ridden, depressed, drug user with low intelligence who hits
children and lies about it, the court had an obligation to hear from those who know
C.H. best her family, friends, colleagues, neighbors and pastor, and especially
from those who saw her interactions with the two girls in question. Some know
both C.H. and the other family and could have testified as to their respective char-
acters and family stability. It is not always the case that what looks good on paper
is in fact good or better or best for the children. As the court is weighing who is
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
29/44
27
the better party to adopt, it should have all the facts from the experts who know
them best: the family.
The deck was further stacked when three lawyers, five witnesses and a social
worker for the Support Center for the Child Advocates (whose presence at both the
hearing and the pre-hearing is questionable, since they are supposed to be for
lawyers and witnesses only) were allowed for one side; while one lawyer and only
two witnesses were allowed for the other, when 12 witnesses waited in the waiting
room all day to testify. That does not serve justice and is not the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
DHS and the Child Advocates have mischaracterized, slandered and demonized
C.H. who stepped up to the plate and did a wonderful job raising the children. This
is the central fact that is lacking in most of the arguments against C.H.. They have
also demeaned the grassroots group supporting her in getting what are her rights
and objecting to their testimony which the court erred by sustaining. They further
threatened C.H. with never seeing her nieces again unless she dropped her adop-
tion petition and severed her ties with EMWM.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
30/44
28
This case is emblematic of the problems with the child welfare system which is
focusing, not on examining and reforming their practices and biases which has led
to Philadelphia having the distinction of removing children, overwhelmingly
children of color, at the highest rate in the country for a city of its size, but instead
on attacking a low-income Black single mother who was doing a great job raising
her nieces, and the all-volunteer support group she works with. We are asking the
court to right this wrong and return these children to their closest living relative
who loves them and whom they love.
III It is in the best interest of the children both immediate and long-term to
return them to their aunt and re-integrate them into their extended family
- court erred in failing to hear critical evidence regarding reunification
Opposing counsel has argued that the initial removal, while perhaps regrettable, is
water under the bridge and returning the children to their aunt after all this time
would be traumatic and damaging as the children have now bonded with the new
caregivers. But Dr Samuel testified that there is no set amount of time children can
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
31/44
29
be away after which they are scarred. It depends on the child. The body of litera-
ture on the issue of reunification shows that the predictions that children would
be forever scarred if they were reunited with their parents are not supported by
current scientific knowledge. 22
Critics have soundly denounced the perspective that discounts the connections
children maintain with their parents (or in this case aunt, the only consistent care-
giver they knew), even while in substitute care, as well as children's ability to
develop relationships with more than one "psychological parent." 23Empirical
studies show, for example, that children in foster care suffer psychological harm
when they are cut off from their family and they benefit from contact with their
parents during placement. Policy makers and judges nevertheless hold fast to the
preeminence accorded to permanency 24 Reuniting A.H. and S.H. with their aunt
who was their primary caregiver and reintegrating them with their family, church
and community from whom they have been separated is in their best interest and
can be accomplished in a positive way. Unlike the current caregivers who have
22 Ronald G. Silikovitz and Philip H. Witt, "The Role of the Psychologist in Guardianship Proceed-ings," New Jersey Psychologist 42 (1992)
23 Matthew B. Johnson, "Examining Risks to Children in the Context of Parental Rights TerminationProceedings", NY Univ Review of Law and Social Change 22 (1996): 397
24 Peggy C. Davis, "'There is a Book Out...': An Analysis of Judicial Absorption of Legislative Facts," Harvard Law Review 100 (1987): 1539
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
32/44
30
moved to stopped all visitations, C.H. would welcome their involvement in the
girls lives, promote visits and invite them to social occasions. While the current
caregivers would have to discuss the possibility of visits, C.H. has no problem
with the other party visiting or the children visiting them. She would make sure
that the transition is smooth and that the girls dont suffer any further trauma. The
court must bear in mind the long-term impact of being torn from their roots with
their loving aunt, and their loving and close-knit family and community. Studies
have shown that children seek out their families and roots as soon as they are able
to do so and restore the balance.
A.H. and S.H. should never have been removed from the home of C.H., particular-
ly in a way that was cruel to the children, C.H. and the family, that was possibly
illegal but definitely against stated practices and any standard of decency, and that
was based on opinion, bias, misrepresentations and shoddy and unprofessional
evaluations. An initial mistake was made in taking the children, and everything
that has happened since has been done to justify it or cover it up, compounding
rather than correcting the mistake. Placing the children with a better-off but more
distant and disconnected family member does not right the wrong of their removal
nor restore to the children the connections they had when they were severed and is
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
33/44
31
not in their best short term or long term interest, despite the time lapse. It further
sets a terrible precedent: that wealth, social standing and education level are deter-
minants of best interest of the child, not how the children are doing, and that
DHS and its affiliates can act with impunity and without regard for the wishes of
the family, former social workers, church and community who all spoke out for
C.H.. Only returning the children to C.H. restores the bonds and reunites a family
that includes all parties, while awarding custody to the other party solidifies a
family divide which DHS created, causes the children to lose ties with their closest
blood relatives, and goes against the laws of family reunification and protection
from unjust removal. Only the court has the disinterested oversight to protect the
rights of this family, provide them and the public with recourse, rein in a large
bureaucracy that has been acting with bias and without accountability and allow
justice to be done.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
34/44
32
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we ask this court to reverse the decision of the lower court and reu-
nite C.H. with her nieces by granting her petition to adopt them.
Respectfully submitted:
Phoebe JonesEvery Mother is a Working Mother Networkc/o Crossroads Womens Center33 Maplewood MallPhiladelphia PA 19144(215) 848-1120
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
35/44
I N THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIAEASTERN DISTRICT
I N THE I NTEREST OF S .J.H.-J., A MINOR
APPEAL OF C .H.
SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO . 1950 EDA 2014
I N THE I NTEREST OF A .O.H.-J., A MINOR SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO . 1954 EDA 2014
APPEAL OF C .H. (CONSOLIDATED )
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify I am this date serving a copy of an Amicus Brief in the captionedconsolidated matters upon the following persons in the manner indicated below,which service complies with the Pennsylvania Rues of Appellate Procedure.
Service by First-Class Mail addressed as follows:
1. Honorable Walter J. Olszewski1801 Vine StPhiladelphia PA 19103
2. Jonathon Houlon, EsqDivisional Deputy City SolicitorPhiladelphia Law Department1 Parkway, 1515 Arch St 16 th florPhiladelphia PA 19103
3. Barry M. Kassel, EsqThe Support Center for Child Advocates1900 Cherry StPhiladelphia PA 19103
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
36/44
4. James Martin, Esq.1800 John F Kennedy Blvd Suite 300Philadelphia PA 19103
5. Mark Tanner, EsqFeldman Shepard, LLP1845 Walnut St Flr 21Philadelphia PA 19103
6. Jennifer HoughtonClerk of Family Court1801 Vine St Rm 330CPhiladelphia PA 19103
7. Carolyn Hill3546 No Marshall StPhiladelphia PA 19140
8. Samuel C Stretton, Esq.
Attorney for Appellant, C.H.301 S High St P.O. Box 3231West Chester PA 19381
Respectfully submitted:
Phoebe JonesEvery Mother is a Working Mother Networkc/o Crossroads Womens Center33 Maplewood MallPhiladelphia PA 19144(215) 848-1120
______________Date
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
37/44
Appendix A
Interest of Amicus Curiae
Every Mother is a Working Mother Network (EMWM) is a non-professional
advocacy and support group of caregivers, family advocates and experts in Phila-
delphia who are familiar with this case and the issues that surround it. EMWM,
formed in 1997, campaigns to establish that raising children and other caregiving is
work fundamental to society which has economic value, entitling carers to support
and resources. Since the passage of federal welfare reform laws in 1996, extreme
poverty among women-headed households has nearly tripled. Public funds have
shifted from direct support to families to support for child welfare agencies.
In response, EMWM coordinates DHS Give Us Back Our Children in Philadelphia
formed in 2007 and DCFS Give Us Back Our children in Los Angeles formed in
2009.These are self-help support groups of mothers, grandmothers, other family
members, former social workers, foster parents and supporters together working
against the unjust removal of children from their families by the Philadelphia
Department of Human Services (DHS), not because of abuse or neglect but be-
cause of poverty and lack of resources, displaying sex, race, disability and class
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
38/44
A2
biases in the system. We produced an award-winning documentary on the child
welfare system in Philadelphia, DHS Give Us Back Our Children , in 2010 which
gave voice to the experiences of families facing the child welfare system. EMWM
has been working simultaneously as advocates for families and catalysts for policy
changes; changes that begin to value and support the work of mothers and caregiv-
ers that is so critical to children and society and to address extreme and growing
poverty - which disproportionately impacts communities of color, particularly their
children.
EMWM has been advocating for C.H. since she was referred to us on April 4, 2012
by a reporter at the Philadelphia Daily News whom she contacted when her nieces
were summarily removed. The reporter knew of our particular expertise in assist-
ing mothers and other caregivers in navigating the child welfare system, claiming
their rights and getting the help, resources and respect to which they are entitled,
and which are critical to the well-being of their children. We provided that service
to C.H. who is now volunteering with EMWM to help others.
Founders of EMWM played a leading role in the decision made at the 1995 UN
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
39/44
A3
Decade for Women conference in Beijing China that governments should measure
and value unremunerated work in the home, on the land and in the community and
include those figures in economic statistics and the gross domestic product. Over
1200 non-governmental organizations representing millions of women worldwide
supported the decision. The Bureau of Labor Statistics now conducts time use
surveys as a step toward implementation. Founders also were instrumental in the
introduction of legislation in the US Congress in 1994 called The Unremunerated
Work Act that paved the way for implementation of the UN decision in the US.
Studies have shown that mothers and other caregivers in the US, far from being
scroungers, devote more than 110 million hours a year to unpaid interactive child
care alone 25 worth an estimated $237 billion a year, according to the Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health. Many, such as C.H., are doing the heroic job
of raising children and taking care of elderly dependents in situations of poverty
and even extreme poverty. Neither they nor those they care for should be punished
for this. Nor is the remedy to remove children from their families in order to re-
move them from poverty. Our view is that it is the poverty that needs to be re-
moved, not the children.
25 The Shriver Report, A Womans Nation Pushes Back From The Brink, January 12, 2014.http://shriverreport.org/special-report/a-womans-nation-pushes-back-from-the-brink
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
40/44
A4
Amicus curiae, Dorothy Roberts, an acclaimed scholar of race, gender and the law,
joined the University of Pennsylvania as its 14 th Penn Integrates Knowledge Pro-
fessor with a joint appointment in the Department of Sociology and the Law
School where she also holds the inaugural Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mosell
Alexander chair. Her path-breaking work in law and public policy focuses on
urgent contemporary issues in health, social justice, and bioethics, especially as
they impact the lives of women, children and African-Americans. Her major books
include Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race
in the Twenty-first Century (New Press, 2011); Shattered Bonds: The Color of
Child Welfare (Basic Books, 2002), and Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduc-
tion, and the Meaning of Liberty (Pantheon, 1997). She is the author of more than
80 scholarly articles and book chapters, as well as a co-editor of six books on such
topics as constitutional law and women and the law.
Amicus curiae, Child Welfare Organizing Project (CWOP) is a self-help and
advocacy organization of parents who have had contact with the New York City
child welfare system. Most of our staff and board of directors are parents who have
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
41/44
A5
had children placed in foster care, succeeded in reuniting their own families, and
now use this experience both to help other parents facing similar challenges, and to
organize for system change.
Amicus curiae, The Statewide Parent Advocacy Network (SPAN) is New Jerseys
one-stop for families of children at greatest risk, whether due to poverty, disability
or special health/mental health needs, discrimination based on race, ethnicity,
national origin, or language, involvement in the child welfare or juvenile justice
systems, or other special circumstances. SPAN is the recipient of an array of more
than two dozen federal and state grants that enable SPAN to serve as a one-stop
shop for families to obtain information, training, technical assistance, advocacy,
and support on issues involving families rights in intersecting systems of educa-
tion, healthcare, child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health throughout the
State of New Jersey. SPAN houses the NE Parent Center Assistance and Collabo-
ration Team, providing technical assistance to the federally funded parent centers
in the NE US including Pennsylvania. SPAN also houses the National Center for
Parent Information and Resources, providing resources to other federally-funded
parent training and information centers that assist families of children with disabili-
ties or at risk of inappropriate identification across the country. In our role as a
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
42/44
A6
Parent Training and Information Center and a Family to Family Health Information
Center, SPAN provides assistance to thousands of families each year in every
county of the State, including families who come into contact with the New Jersey
child welfare/child protection system. SPAN is represented on the New Jersey
Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, the statutorily-mandated task force
charged with overseeing prevention of child abuse and protection of children
exposed to abuse, and its Co-Director, Diana Autin, co-chairs the Prevention
Committee of the Task Force. SPAN is particularly interested in the outcome of
this litigation because of our national, regional, and state roles, as this case has
national implications for families at risk of losing their children due to poverty,
discrimination, and the misinterpretation and misapplication of statutes and policy.
Amicus curiae, National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) works to
secure the human and civil rights, health and welfare of all women, focusing par-
ticularly on pregnant and parenting women, and those who are most vulnerable to
state control and punishment - low income women, women of color, and drug-
using women. Through legal advocacy, organizing, public policy development, and
public education, NAPW advances legal and human rights for all women and
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
43/44
A7
families. NAPW is actively involved in ongoing court challenges to punitive
reproductive health and drug policies, including child welfare policies that unnec-
essarily disrupt families and disproportionately burden people of color.
-
8/10/2019 Amicus Brief - Carolyn Hill
44/44
I N THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIAEASTERN DISTRICT
I N THE I NTEREST OF S .J.H.-J., A MINOR
APPEAL OF C .H.
SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO . 1950 EDA 2014
I N THE I NTEREST OF A .O.H.-J., A MINOR SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO . 1954 EDA 2014
APPEAL OF C .H. (CONSOLIDATED )
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE AS TO NUMBER OF WORDS
This Amici Curiae Brief complies with the type volume limitation of the
Pa.R.A.P., Rule 2135(a)(3) because this brief contains 8,006 words.
Respectfully submitted:
Phoebe JonesEvery Mother is a Working Mother Networkc/o Crossroads Womens Center33 Maplewood MallPhiladelphia PA 19144(215) 848-1120
top related