Columnist Sandy Thompson: Court hastily plucks child from mother

Sandy Thompson

Friday, Oct. 19, 2001 | 4:20 a.m.

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

Family Court Judge Bob Gaston also ordered her to bring the then 9-year-old girl with her to Las Vegas.

Melinda and Jenny (not her real name) had been living in California for the past four years. They were enrolled in the state's Safe At Home Program for domestic violence and abuse victims, which keeps enrollees' addresses and phone numbers confidential. Melinda says she had divorced her husband, Michael, because of physical and emotional abuse.

Michael, according to the divorce decree, had visitation once a month. There is a dispute over whether he actually attempted to see Jenny in the last four years. While Melinda was filing a motion in the California courts regarding visitation, Michael sought a custody change in Clark County Family Court so he could "deprogram" his daughter.

Family Court retained jurisdiction. At an Aug. 23 hearing, Michael denied any abuse allegations. Gaston said he had no proof of the allegations, even though Melinda said she had to provide verification to the Safe At Home Program. Melinda said Jenny had been seeing a therapist for the past four years and sometimes had nightmares about her father.

In court, Gaston said he takes domestic violence seriously, but rightfully acknowledged that it is also "used as a mechanism to avoid custody issues." The judge mistook the Safe At Home program for a homeless shelter, which is not the case. He questioned why Melinda would be in the program for four years.

"It sounds like the child is programmed," Gaston said, ordering that Jenny be immediately turned over to her father. He asked the bailiff to get the girl, who was waiting in the hall with her grandmother.

Melinda began sobbing uncontrollably as the judge ordered that she have no telephone or other contact with the child. She was not even allowed to call Jenny on her 10th birthday, which was Sept. 10. Melinda's parents, who live here and are close to Jenny, also were ordered to have no contact with the girl.

As of last Friday, Melinda still had not spoken to her daughter. "No one will tell me if she's OK. She probably thinks I'm dead."

In a move reminiscent of closing the barn door after the cow is let out, Gaston set an evidentiary hearing for Sept. 25 to try to sort out the facts. (Shouldn't that have been done before Jenny was taken from her home and placed in an unfamiliar environment?)

Domestic violence/abuse is a serious issue. Parental alienation also is a serious matter. The latter is sometimes difficult to discern in cases involving domestic violence because what some perceive as "parental alienation" others call "protection."

Despite serious attempts by Family Court to become more child-focused, the emphasis in this case was on punishing one parent and rewarding the other. The child was just a piece of property to be won or lost.

If the abuse allegations aren't true and Jenny indeed was "programmed," she still would be frightened to be with her father. Re-establishing their bond should be done, but done gradually.

If the allegations are true, the court placed a 10-year-old girl in a potentially harmful situation.

The scheduled Sept. 25 evidentiary hearing on the case did not take place. Melinda's attorney admitted he had filed an improper motion and had to redraft it. He also noted that a key witness -- the therapist who has been working with Jenny for the last four years -- was unable to be present on that date.

Michael's attorney said the therapist's testimony would be "irrelevant" since Jenny is seeing a new therapist who will talk about her relationship with her father. (Stay tuned for dueling therapists' reports.)

Another evidentiary hearing has been set for Dec. 7. The no-contact order remains in effect.

In court, Gaston said he was concerned when he talked to Jenny in August. "I've never seen a child's face like that," he said, describing Jenny as a "very disturbed young lady who needs assistance."

That look on her face was probably fear and apprehension when she learned she was being ripped from her home without warning and unable to contact her mother.

I doubt she understands why the judge thinks that is in her best interest.

I certainly don't.