Columnist Sandra Thompson: Judge Gaston’s gag order raises concerns

Sandra Thompson

Sunday, Oct. 24, 1999 | 10:26 a.m.

Sandra Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or through e-mail at thompson@lasvegassun.com.

FAMILY COURT Judge Bob Gaston has issued a gag order in a controversial foster care case.

Legal pundits say it's an unusual move in Family Court. One even thought it was redundant since, by law, such cases are confidential.

So why the gag order?

Under Supreme Court rules, Gaston is precluded from discussing a pending or impending case. So he's not talking. But he's clearly bothered that this case has received media attention. He appears to be more in a punitive mood than a protective one.

The foster care case is one of two that were profiled here Sept. 5. It involves a 5-year-old girl and her 2-year-old brother who have been in foster care for two years. There had been a middle child, but he died when he was 18 months old of acute cerebral edema while in the mother's care. There reportedly were new and old bruises on his little body and bruises on his buttocks consistent with belt marks. A relative had said the parents have a history of domestic violence and abuse.

The mother was not charged in the incident, despite suspicions about her involvement. The oldest and youngest children were taken from the home amid concerns for their safety. According to one report, there were allegations of sexual abuse against the father. Although the father was ordered to have no contact with the girl, there is reason to believe he is with the mother during visits with the children.

The state attorney general's office sought to terminate the parents' rights to pave the way for the children's adoption by the foster family that had been caring for them. There is speculation that because the attorneys did not present a solid case, Gaston refused to terminate those rights.

But the attorneys aren't talking because of the gag order.

Gaston now is leaning toward returning the children to their parents, or at least the mother, if they or she follows a case plan. That plan includes no drug use, a stable living environment and a job. Previous case plans reportedly have not been followed.

Caseworkers vehemently oppose returning the children to their parents and reportedly are upset by Gaston's actions.

But they're not talking.

The foster parents reportedly raised concerns. However, they have no rights in this case even though they have been caring for the children for two years.

But they're not talking.

When contacted, the foster mother read a statement that she was told to keep by her phone: "These cases are confidential and I can't discuss or make comments on any case."

The Foster Parents Association also raised concerns. Representatives met with Gaston on several occasions. The first meeting was amicable; the last reportedly degenerated into a shouting match.

But the Foster Parents Association isn't talking.

Prior to the gag order, Gaston spoke in general terms about foster care issues, saying that sometimes foster parents care too much and are overzealous.

Ironically, a new state law says that "when determining whether the best interests of the child warrant the granting of a petition that is filed by a foster parent, the court shall give strong consideration to the emotional bond between the child and foster parent."

There was speculation that the district attorney's office at Juvenile Court might reopen the case of the 18-month-old who died. But the gag order even extends into that office, and nobody there is talking.

Is Gaston concerned that publicity, most notably in this column, will hurt these children? Neither the children nor their parents have been named here.

There are valid reasons to keep certain aspects of foster care/adoption records confidential. But secrecy can be a double-edged sword. Closed-door proceedings and no public accountability can spawn abuse of power.

Is Gaston making a sound decision based on the facts in this case or is he being obstinate in the face of criticism and opposition because he's the one wearing the black robe?

We may never know because nobody's talking.

But we do know one thing for sure: if the children were returned to an unstable home and, God forbid, harmed, then everybody will be talking.