Columnist Sandra Thompson: Custody rulings jeopardizing children

Sandra Thompson

Sunday, Sept. 5, 1999 | 10:28 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@vegas.com.

SEVERAL FAMILY COURT decisions to return foster children to their parents in allegedly unsafe environments are raising concerns of foster parents, child welfare workers and relatives.

Two of the cases are particularly disturbing.

The first involves the "Smith" children ages 5 and 2. A middle child, then 18 months old, had died of severe head trauma while in the care of the mother. Although suspicions were raised, the mother was not charged.

A relative who opposes returning the children to the parents says the family has a history of domestic violence and says she called the child abuse hotline on a "regular basis."

"I don't want to go to another funeral of a baby," she says.

The children have been in foster care for more than two years. Family Court Judge Robert Gaston recently refused to terminate the parental rights and ordered that the children be returned to the mother.

The second case involves the "Jones" sisters -- ages 3, 4 and 6-year-old twins. Two older siblings are each living with a grandparent and are not part of the case.

The four girls were taken from their parents because of horrible neglect. The 4-year-old was still in diapers and had no language skills. The two youngest have severe emotional behavior problems.

According to one report, the girls were "severely starved" and often stayed in homeless shelters. At 7 months, the youngest child had scabies, and failure-to-thrive syndrome.

The mother allegedly is on probation for a child abuse incident involving another child, which was not hers. She also allegedly failed a drug test as recently as July 7.

Caseworkers testified against returning the children in both cases to their parents. A doctor who evaluated the Jones twins wrote: "The idea of reuniting the children back with the parents is ... unconscionable and inhumane as this is almost certainly going to worsen the children's psychiatric difficulties."

So why are the children being returned?

No one can explain the decision except Judge Robert Gaston, who made the ruling. But he is precluded from talking about it. The minutes of the hearings on the cases are not public record.

Last week Gaston met with two representatives of the Foster Parents Association to discuss their concerns that some of his decisions were placing children in jeopardy. The association represents about 150 of 550 foster families.

Typically, parents must show a stable housing environment and means of support, learn good parenting skills and be drug-free before their children will be returned to them. Gaston has a zero tolerance for drugs and has implemented a successful drug court for parents and youths.

Yet in the Smith and Jones cases, Gaston allegedly overlooked failed drug tests. In at least one case, the parents have neither a place to live nor visible means of support.

And if that isn't troubling enough, Gaston allegedly ordered that there be no follow-up visits or monitoring of the children once they are reunited with their parents.

Speaking in general terms, Gaston says he is totally dependent on information and evidence brought to him by caseworkers and the attorney general's office, which handles termination of parental rights cases.

"It's a high standard. It must be clear and convincing evidence," he says. "If the evidence shows me children will be at risk if they go back to their parents, I won't send them."

That contradicts his orders in the Smith and Jones cases.

In one case, a social worker who opposed reunification verbally sparred with Gaston, who threatened to put her in jail for contempt.

Although he says he would not discount foster parents' concerns about a child, Gaston points out that they sometimes become too attached to the children in their care and can't let them go.

While foster parents admit that happens, they say they only care about the welfare of the children.

The Children's Advocacy Alliance, a private foundation, has taken an interest in the cases.

The Children's Law Project, which was designed for representing children in cases like this, was to begin Sept. 1 but may not be ready to accept cases for another month or two, which would be too late for the Smith and Jones children.

Hearings on both cases were scheduled last week, but were continued.

Too many red flags have been raised in these cases. They must be thoroughly investigated -- with the children's best interest in mind -- before these children can be returned home.

We can't swing the pendulum back to the days when parents "owned" children. Children have rights, which must supersede those of abusive and neglectful parents.

These children desperately need a chance to survive and thrive. Place them, or keep them, where they will have that chance. If the parents have not miraculously broken that cycle of abuse and neglect, then the court must break it -- for the sake of the children, and no one else.