You are on page 1of 43
u az 13 1 15 16 or) 18 19 20 a. 22 23 2a 25 26 27 28 512, AND THEN JUDGE JASKOL WAS AWAY, STILL 1S AWAY SITTING PRO TEM AT THE COURT OF APPEAL, AND WHEN THE CASE CAME ON FOR THE CONTESTED .21(E) BEFORE JUDGE NELSON, WHO 1S COVERING JUDGE JASKOL'S COURTROOM, SHE WAS PAPERED T BELTEVE BY FATHER'S COUNSEL, AND IT WAS THE FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE JUDGE NELSON AND FATHER NEVER PAPERED ANYONE, SO HE COULD, AND HE DID, AND THAT IS HOW THE CASE CAME 70 ME. $0 IT WAS ALREADY AT THE .21(6) CONTEST AND ALREADY VERY BERIND SCHEDULE, VERY CLOSE TO -~ MAYBE EVEN AT THAT TIME APTER THE .22 DATE WHEN IT GOT TO ME. SO THAT IS HOW IT GOT HERE. SO T HAD TO LEARN THE BACKGROUND, SO I READ THE FILE FROM THE BEGINNING. AND T WILL ALSO NOTE THAT, IN THE FATHER'S WRIPTEN CLOSING, HE OBJECTS TO THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE DETENTION AND JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION REPORTS, INCLUDING THE REFERRAL KISTORY DESCRIBED THEREIN. THOSE REPORTS, I BELIEVE, HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS EXHIBITS BY ANY PARTY FOR THIS HEARING, BUT, OF COURSE, I HAVE TO READ AND CONSIDER THOSE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON IN ‘THE CASE. YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER ‘THE ISSUES THAT BROUGHT THE CASH IN HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTUAL, CONTEXT. OF COURSE, CONTEXT AND THE OVERALL CIRCUNSTANCES ARE CRITICAL IN DEPENDENCY CASES, PARTICULARLY IN THIS ONE, SO IF I DIDN'T KNOW WERT WAS IN THE DETENTION OR JURISDICTION REPORTS, THERE WOULD BE REALLY NO WAY FOR NE TO RATIONALLY ASSESS 2 1B uM a 16 v 18 ct 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 513 ‘THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE REPORTS DO AND MUST CONTAIN REFERRAL HISTORY, AND THAT 1S ALSO, OF COURSE, RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE FANILY AND WHAT RISKS ARE POSED TO THE CHILDREN. 50 I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE, I DID READ THE ARGUMENTS. I DID NOTE THOSE OBJECTIONS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE MERIT. T HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE OLD REPORTS, OTHERWISE, T DON'T KNOW WHAT TS GOING ON TN THE case. 80 BACKGROUND FACTS. AGAIN, ‘THE CONTEXT, AGAIN, IN THE CASE TS CRITICAL, AND THERE ARE KINO OF ROUGHLY TWO PERSPECTIVES, AT LEAST ON WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE. ONE, I THINK -~ I THINK THIS MAY BE THE PARENTS' PERSPECTIVE. IT TS HARD 70 SAY. EVEN FROM THEIR TESTINONY, HAVING READ THETR ARGUNENTS, TT TS NOT ALL TKAT CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE PARENTS, THEMSELVES, THINK THE CASE Ts ABOUT. BUT TT LOOKS -- THIS IS ONE POSSIBLE PERSPECTIVE ON THE CASE. WHEN THE 911 CALL CAME IN, AND THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVED AND FOUND LEONE UNCONSCIOUS, APPARENTLY NAVING BEEN BLEEDING FROM HIS MOUTH, NOSE AND EARS, AND BODY COVERED IN BRUISES, IT LOOKED LIKE THIS HIDEOUS PHYSICAL ABUSE CASE, AND THE HOME WAS IN VERY BAD CONDITION. AND ONE POSSIBLE TAKE ON THE FACTS T THINK: FROM THE PARENTS’ POINT OF VIEW 1S, WELL, YES, THINGS LOOKED REAL BAD THAT DAY, IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T PHYSICAL ABUSE. IT WAS THAT ME HAD LEUKEMIA, THAT IS WHY HE WAS 10 u a2 a3 4 15 16 uw 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 20 51a BLEEDING AND BRUISED SO EASY, ANO HE HAD THIS UNDIAGNOSED LRUKEMIA, AND, YES, THE PARENT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN HI TO THE DOCTOR SOONER AND DONE SOMETHING QUICKER, AND THAT IS MORE OR LESS WHAT THEY PLED TO. THAT TS IT. THEY WERE JUST A LITTLE SLOW GETTING HIM TO THE DOCTOR. THAT WAS REALLY IT. YES, THE HOME WAS MESSY THAT DAY. BUT IT WAS KIND OF THAT ONE-TINE THING. THE KIDS WERE SICK. THEY KIND OF LET THINGS SLIP A LITTLE BIT THAT DAY OR FOR [A COUPLE DAYS OR SOMETHING. THAT WAS REALLY IT. $0 IT WAS JUST KIND OF THIS BRIEF, ONE-TIME LITTLE, OPS, WE DIDN'T GET HIM TO THE DOCTOR QUICK ENOUGH. AND, YES, THE HOUSE WAS MESSY, BUT THAT WAS ABOUT 17. AND SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED WAS EVERYONE SAW THIS KIND OF APPALLING LOOKING SITUATION, APPALLING ON THE SURFACE THAT DAY, AND EVERYONE FREAKSD OUT, AND THE KIDS WERE REMOVED, AND THERE WERE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AND THE WHOLE THING KIND SPUN OUT OF CONTROL, AND THE PANILY IS NOW TRAPPED IN THIS KIND OF NIGHTMARE HERE THETR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEM FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS NOW, AND THEY CAN'T GET THEM BACK. THAT TS -- I THINK THAT 1S, YOU KNOR, ONE. POINT OF VIEW, I GUESS T COULD SAY, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. LIKE I SAY, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER THAT TS EXACTLY THE PARENTS CONTEND THE SITUATION REALLY 1S, BUT, AS I SAY, I CAN'T REALLY TELL WHAT THEY THINK THE SITUATION IS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MIGHT BE IT. IT MIGHT BE WHAT IS IN THE MINDS OF SAY MS. DEUKMBJTAN OR DR, FRANZBLAU. T DON'T KNOW. 10 Fey 12 13 14 15 16 uv 1 » 20 aa 22 23 2a Ey 26 27 28 sis BUT THAT PERSPECTIVE, IN ANY EVENT, 18 COMPLETELY INCORRECT ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE. $0 THE REALITY IS THAT THE CHILOREN HAD NOT BEEN SEEN BY DOCTORS OR DENTISTS FOR YEARS, FOR YEARS, AND WERE BEAIND ON ALL THEIR MEDICAL CARE, BEHIND ON THEIR IMMUNIZATIONS, HAD MOUTHS FULL OF ROTTING TEETH. AND THE DEPARTMENT -- THE FAMILY HAS A TEN-YEAR HISTORY OF REFERRALS FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ISSUES, AND 1 THINK THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS CLOSED AS UNFOUNDED, IF 1 REMEMBER CORRECTLY. 1 DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, THERE WAS ONE CLOSED [AS UNFOUNDED BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO GET IN AND CHECK, AND THE HOME WAS CLEANED UP AT THAT TIME, SO TT WAS CLOSED AS UNFOUNDED, BUT I THINK THE REST WERE CLOSED AS INCONCLUSIVE BECAUSE, ESSENTIALLY, THE PARENTS STONEWALLED AND EVADED ANY THVESTIGATION, AND THERE WASN'T ANY EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL INJURY AT THAT TIME TO THE CHILDREN. THEY ARE JUST BEHIND IN SCHOOL. THEY WERE FOOR HYGIENE. THINGS OF THAT KIND, JUST KIND OF GENERAL NEGLECT ISSUES, AND YEAR AFTER YEAR, SAMB REFERRAL, SAME ISSUES. ATTEMPTED INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE THEN STYMIED, THEN REFERRALS WERE CLOSED AS INCONCLUSIVE. NOW, ONCE THE CASE DID FINALLY GET OPEN BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH LEONE, AND THE SOCIAL WORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS WERE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO ‘THE CHILDREN, THEY WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM, CORRECT, THE CHILDREN HAVE NOT BEEN TO A DOCTOR OR DENTIST IN YEARS, IN YEARS, AND HAVE MOUTHS FULL OF ROTTING TEETH. SO THOSE 10 ua 2 13 “ul 13 16 uv 1a 19 20 2 22 23 2a 25 26 27 28 516 ARE THE FACTS, AND SO THE TSSUES IN THE CASE ARE MEDICAL NEGLECT, DENTAL NEGLECT, EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, AND THE DIRTY HOME. THAT IS JUST, YOU KNOR, IN SHORT, YOU KNOR, THE LACK OF APPROPRIATELY KEPT UP HOME FOR THE CHILDREN. THOSE ARE THE ISSUES. AGAIN, IT IS A MULTI-YEAR PATTERN, SVEN IF YoU eUT ASTDE THE REFERRALS, IT IS YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE M.A.T. REPORT, OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL NEGLECT. 50 IT 18 MULTIPLE YEARS AND, AGAIN, DESPITE PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO INTERVENE IN THE FAMILY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN AND HAVE BEEN STYMIED BY THE PARENTS. TWAT TS THE BACKGROUND. NOW, JUST BRIEFLY, 1 WANT SAY SOMBTAING ABOUT ‘HE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT JUST TO MAKE TT CLEAR THAT I AM AWARE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT IS NOT JURTSDICTIONAL, IT 18 NOT ANYTHING -- IT I$ NOT A BASIS TO REMOVE, YOU KNOW, DETAIN, REMOVE. IT IS NOT A BASIS FOR JURISDICTION. EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, BY ITSELF, 18 NOT. LIKEWISE, I BELIEVE T COULON'T -- FOR THE SAME REASONS, I DON'T THINK IT COULD, BY ITSELF, BE THE PASIS OF RISK OF DETRIMENT. TT TS HANDLED BY SEPARATE SYSTEMS. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE REVIEW BOARD, 5.A.R.B., DEALS WITH THAT, BUT THE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, AT THE SAME TIME, CAN BE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN A CASE LIKE THIS THAT SUPEORTS AN INFERENCE OF A GENERAL PATTERN OF NEGLECT OF THE CHILDREN, AND IT ALSO, OF COURSE, INCREASED THE RISK TO THEM BECAUSE THE CHILDREN AREN'T TN SCHOOL, THEN THEY ARE NOT REGULARLY IN CONTACT WITH MANDATED 20 u 2 B a4 a5 16 Ww 1s 19 20 an 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 517 REPORTERS WHO CAN IDENTIFY NEGLECT TF THE CHILDREN ARE BEING NEGLECTED AND HARMED, WHICH THEY WERE. SO THAT 15 THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FOR MY PURPOSES. 17 15 UST THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A GENERAL PATTERN OF NEGLECT, AND ALSO INCREASING THE RISK THAT NEGLECT WILL GO UNDETECTED BECAUSE PARENTS ARE -~ THE CHILDREN AREN'T COMING INTO THE CONTACT WITH THE MANDATED REPORTERS AT SCHOOL. SO THOSE ARE THE BACKGROUND ISSUES IN THE CASE. BROADLY SPEAKING, I THINK THERE WOULD BE TWO PATHS TO REUNTFICATION, SO TO SPEAK. ONE WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUES THAT CAUSED THE NEGLECT, THAT CAUSED THIS MULTI-YEAR PATTERN OF NEGLECT THAT PHYSICALLY HARMED THE CHILDREN. WHY DID THE PARENT DO 17? iy? SO HAVE THEY CHANGED? HAVE THEY FIXED 17? HAVE THEY ADDRESSED THAT 18SUE? THAT NOULD BE ONE. THE OTHER PATH, SO TO SPEAK, THAT MIGHT BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FIRST OR SEPARATE, WOULD JUST BE ‘THROUGH GRADUALLY LIBERALTZED VISITATION. THE PARENTS COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY CAN PROPERLY CARE FOR THE CHILDREN WITHOUT NEGLECTING THEM THROUGH GRADUALLY INCREASED VISITATION. $0 THOSE WOULD BE THO WAYS 10 GET ‘TO REUNIFICATION T THINK IN THE CASE. SO ON THE FIRST ONE, WHAT ARE THE UNDERLYING ISSUES? HY WERE THE PARENTS NEGLECTING THE CHTLOREN FOR YEARS? WHY DID THEY DO IT? DESPITE ALL THIS TESTIMONY, ALL THIS EVIDENCE, T THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT ANSWER -~ TO ‘THIS QUESTION IS STILL VERY UNCLEAR, IT IS STILL QUITE REMARKABLE. 10 u 12 13 “4 15 16 uv 13 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 518 IN THE DETENTION REPORT -- AND BOTH MINORS! COUNSEL NOTED IN THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS, IN THE DETENTION REPORT, THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED 18 RELIGIOUS VI8WS, THAT THE FATHER HOLDS RELIGIOUS VIEWS THAT, ACCORDING TO WHICH, HE WAS NOT GOING TO TAKE THE CHILDREN TO DOCTORS, AND THE MOTHER HELD RELIGIOUS VIEWS THAT, LIKEWISE, REQUIRED HER 7 DEFER TO THE FATHER'S VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE, THAT 1S (KAT IT SAYS IN THE DETENTION REPORT, AND IT 1S BASED ON ‘THE PARENTS’ ON STATEMENTS. HEN THE PARENTS TESTIFTED, THEY BASICALLY DENIED ALL OF THAT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT HAVE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELTEES CHANGED, OR WERE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, YOU KNOW, WHAT UNDBRLAY THE MULTI-YEAR PATTERN OF NEGLECT THAT PHYSICALLY THEIR CHILDREN? WAS IT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARB? THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT TT TN THEIR TESTIMONY. BOTH PARENTS TESTIFIED. THEY DIDN*T REALLY ADDRESS IS THAT WHY? WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT IS GOING ON? 50 THAT IS ONE HYPOTHESIS, IT IS REALLY THE ONLY ONE THAT We HAVE EVIDENCE FOR. APTER -- I SHOULD ALSO STATE FOR THE RECORD, APTER ALL OF THE WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED EXCEPT FOR THE ONE REBUTTAL WITNESS FOR THE DEPARTMENT, THE PATERNAL GRANOFATHER, AFTER EVERYONE ELSE HAD TESTIFIED, T CONFERENCED THE CASE WITH ALL THE ATTORNEYS OFF THE RECORD QUITE EXTENSIVELY, AND THTS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS TASKED. DOES ANYONE KNOW? KHY DID THE PARENTS DO 10 2 a3 aa a5 16 a as a9 20 2a 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 519 THIS? WHY WERE THEY NEGLECTING THESE CHILDREN FOR 30 LONG? AND MINORS* COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY SAID IT TS THE RELIGIOUS STUFF, THAT 1S IN THE DEPOSITION REPORT. IT 18. THE ONLY OTHER EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS THAT I? WAS A FINANCIAL PROBLEM, MONEY ISSUES. AND THE FATHER SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE DETENTION REPORT, AND THAT HE WAS JUST BEING HARASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE HE TS POOR, AND NO ONE TS GOING TO TELL HIM HOW TO RAISE HIS CHILOREN. I THINK 1 HAVE THAT QUOTE HERE SOMEWHERE. RIGHT. SO THIS IS FROM THE DETENTION REPORT. THE FATHER TELLS THE E.R. WORKER, QUOTE, "NO ONE IS GOING TO COME AND QUESTION ME ABOUT THE WAY I RAISE MY CHILDREN," AND WHEN HE TS ASKED ABOUT THETR MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE, HE SAYS, QUOTE, "I HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION NEEDED AT HOME TO PROVIDE THE GOVERNNENT, THAT THIS TS A FRAUD, AND HOW YOU ARE REMOVING MY CHILDREN BECAUSE I'M. POOR." $0, AS I NOTED AT THE CONFERENCE, THE FATHER'S RESPONSE WHEN HE 1S FINALLY CAUGHT AFTER TEN YEARS OF STONEWALLING AND EVASION, HE tS FINALLY CAUGHT, RED-HANDED, NEGLECTING THE CHTLOREN, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY HARMED, HIS IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TS DEFIANCE AND DECEIT. THE DEFIANCE IS, NO ONE IS GOING TO TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY CHILDREN; AND THE DECEIT 1S, 1 HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE. THIS IS A FRAUD. WELL, ACTUALLY, IT TURNS OUT NO, THE CHILDREN HAVE NOT BEEN TO THE DOCTOR OR DENTIST IN YEAR. ALL 10 u a2 1B ua 15 16 aa 18 a 20 a 22 23 2a 25 26 a 28 520 RIGHT. $0 AS TO THE FINANCIAL EXPLANATION, THAT IT WHAT WAS GOING ON. IT WAS JUST THAT THEY ERE POOR AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME BECAUSE THERE ARE FREE MEDTCAL AND DENTAL SERVICES AVATIABLE. THERE TS. MEDI-CAL, T HAVE PLENTY OF CASES INVOLVING PARENTS WHO ARE CLEARLY LESS EDUCATED, LESS SKILLED, I BELIEVE LESS INTELLIGENT THAN THESE PARENTS, BUT WHO HAVE NO TROUBLE SIGNING UP THETR CHILDREN FOR MEDI-CAL. THEY CAN GET 17 DONE IF THEY WANT TO TF THEY TRY. TT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. $0 I'M AFRAID 1 JUST DON'T BELIEVE THE FINANCIAL EXPLANATION AT ALL TN THIS CASE, NOT A MOMENT. MOREOVER, TT DOESN'T EXPLAIN HY THE STONEWALLING BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TRYING TO GET MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR CRILDREN, TRYING 70 AND JUST SOMBHOK WEREN'T ABLE TO, WEREN'T ABLE TO GET I? LINED UP, THEN WHEN THERE WAS A REFERRAL, HEN A SOCIAL WORKER SHOWS UP, WHY WOULDN'T THE RESPONSE BE, OH, YOU ARE A SOCIAL WORKER, T*M SO GLAD YOU ARE HERE. CAN YOU HELP ME GET MEDI-CAL TURNED ON FOR MY KIDS? YOU NUST BE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. AND, OF COURSE, THEY ARB. OF COURSE THEY DO ASSIST PARENTS WITH THAT KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME. BUT NO, IT WASN'T THAT. 17 WAS, AGAIN, STONEAALLING AND EVASION, SO THIS, YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T AFFORD TT, I JUST DON'T BUY THAT FOR A MOMENT. 50 IT 18 JUST NOT CREDIBLE OR PLAUSIBLE. MOREOVER, EVEN IF THAT EXPLANATION TS TRUE, THAT IT IS A FINANCIAL ISSUE, THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOWS, ONEQUIVOCALLY, THAT IT IS STILL NOT ADDRESSED BECAUSE BOTH n 12 13 uu 15 16 u 1a 19 20 a 2 23 2 25 26 27 23 521 PARENTS TESTIFIED THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ANY HEALTH INSURANCE. THEY STILL HAVEN'T CONE TT, THEIR TESTIMONY, IW EFFECT, WAS WE ARE WORKING ON TT, WE ARE STILL LOOKING INTO IT, WE ARE LOOKING INTO OUR OPTIONS. WE ARE WORKING WITH ON IT, AGATN, WE ARE 20 MONTHS SINCE DETENTION, AND THEY ARE LOOKING INTO TT, THEY ARE WORKING ON TT, 0, PRETTY CLEARLY, NOT WORKING ON IT HARD ENOUGH. PRETTY CLEARLY THE TSSUE HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED AT ALL IF THAT EVER WAS THE TSSUE, WHICH T DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS. SO THOSE ARE THE UNDERLYING ISSUES. 50 WHAT TS THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY RELEVANT CHANGE? BECAUSE THAT IS THE FIRST -- AGAIN, ‘TWO WAYS TO GET TO REUNIFICATION. ONE IS ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING CAUSE. $0 WHAT 13 IT? NOT CLEAR TO ME. WAT HAS CHANGED? NOT CLEAR TO ME, SO THE -~ AGAIN, IT KIND OF A FRUSTRATING AND MYSTERIOUS CASE BECAUSE, UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT THE UNDERLYING ISSUES ARE, IT IS HARD TO GEAR ‘THE CASE PLAN 70 FIXING TT. THE CASE FLANS, ON THEIR FACE, LOOK REASONABLE. COUNSELING, PARENTING, VISITATION, CONJOINT, INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING, AND PARENTING, GET THEM ASSESSED PSYCHOLOGICALLY. GET PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENTS. 00 THAT. SRE IF THEY APPEAR TO BE MENTALLY ILL, THEY DON'T APPEAR ‘TO BE MENTALLY ILL AS FAR AS ANYONE CAN TELL. $0 WHAT DO YOU 00? WELL, I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE TSSUES AND I THINK THERE WAS —- I THINK MR. CURLEY'S BRIBP DESCRIBED THIS PRETTY WELL. THIS TS AT PAGE 3 OF 7 18 a9 20 a 22 23 20 2 26 27 23 522 THE CLOSING ARGUMENT OF COUNTY COUNSEL AT THE TOP. MR, CURLEY WRITES, “WHILE THE PARENTS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN PARENTING CLASSES AND ATTENDED SOME COUNSELING SESSIONS, THERE 15 NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE GAINED ANY REAL INSIGHT INTO THE ISSUES THAT LED TO THE REMOVAL OF THETR CHILDREN OR THAT ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT LED TO THE PARENTS’ NEGLECT OF THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED." WHEN 1 READ THAT SENTENCE, T CAN'T REALLY FIND ANYTHING IN 17 THAT 1 DISAGREE WETH. I THINK ALL OF THA I$ CORRECT. I LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE PARENTS* TESTIMONY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY THINK THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED WHEN THEY TALKED ABOUT THEIR PARENTING AND INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING AND CONJOINT AND WHAT THEY Go? OUT OF TT, THEY TALKED ABOU? THINGS LIKE BETTER COMMUNICATION, BETTER CONFLICTED RESOLUTION, THINGS LIKE cTHar. 18 THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THAT IS WHY THEY SPENT YEARS NEGLECTING THE CHILDREN AND CAUSING THEM PHYSICAL HARM? NO. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE TS. SO I'm GLAD THAT THEY HAVE BETTER COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW IT HELP SHOW THAT THERE TS NO SUBSTANTTAL RISK OF DETRIMENT, THAT ANYTHING HAS BEEN RESOLVED. $0, LET'S SEE. SO AS FOR THE RISK OF DETRIMENT, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT 1S REALLY A CLOSE CALL. 1 DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE UNDERLYING ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, AND 1 DON'T HAVE LIBERALIZED AND 10 re 12 13 “ 15 16 u 1a 19 20 a 2 23 2 25 26 27 23 523 EXPANDED VISITATION THAT WOULD SHOW MB, YES, THAT THINGS HAVE STABILIZED, AND THE CHILDREN CAN BE RETURNED. AND ALSO, TNCIDENTALLY, BECAUSE OF THIS LONG PATTERN OF NEGLECT, INCLUDING THE HYGIENE, KEEPING UP WITH ‘THE HOME, TT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE PARENTS TO SHOW THAT THEY RAVE KIND OF STABILIZED THEIR LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THETR HOUSING, TN SUCH A WAY THAT WE CAN SEE, YES, THEY ARE GOING TO BE STABLE, YES, THEY CAN KEEP TT UB, BECAUSE IF THEY ARE NOT STABLE AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, GETTING EVICTED, MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, WHATEVER, LIVING IN A HOTEL OR ON THE STREET, OF COURSE IT PRESENTS A RISK OF THINGS VERY QUICKLY DETERIORATING TO THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE WHEN ‘THE CASE CANE IN. $0 GENERAL STABILITY IS ONE OF THE ‘THINGS THAT WOULD BE TMPORTANT FOR THE PARENTS TO show. AND THEY DIDN'T GET STABLE HOUSING ONTTL APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WHICH IS THE MONTH BEFORE THE ORIGINAL .21(E) DATE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THEY ARE STILL THERE. THERE 1S EVIDENCE THAT THE GRANDFATHER —— PATERNAL GRANDEATHER SAYS THAT HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT STABILITY OF ‘THE HOUSING BECAUSE HE IS NOT SURE THAT THE FATHER'S INCOME TS ENOUGH TO MAKE RENT CONSISTENTLY. REMARKABLY, T HAVE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE RENT 15 OR HOW MUCH THE FATHER MAKES. 50, AGAIN, AFTER ALL THIS, ALL THESE EXHIBITS, ALL THIS TESTIMONY, 00 I HAVE ANY HARD EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS SHOWING WHAT 1S THETR RENT, WHAT 1S THETR INCOME ‘70 SHOW ME THEY ARE STABLE, THEY HAVE GOT 17 TOGETHER? t 10 u 2 B u cry 16 u ae a9 20 2 22 23 2a 25 26 21 28 524 DON'T HAVE IT. SO THAT DOESN'T HELP EITHER. Now, SO, AS FAR AS RISK OF DETRIMENT, AGAIN, THERE IS REALLY NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, THE ISSUES THAT THERE ARE MEDICAL NEGLECT, DENTAL NEGLECT, EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, DIRTY HOME. THE HOME WHERE THEY LIVE NOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPEARS TO BE OKAY FOR NOW, SO THERE IS THAT, BUT AS FAR AS THE STABILITY, I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT. FOR REASONABLE SERVICES, THAT TS THE BIG ISSUE ARGUED BY THE PARENTS. BASICALLY, ON A COUPLE POINTS, ONE IS THE COMMUNICATION. THE OTHER TS FAILURE TO SET UP CONJOINT COUNSELING. AND T WON'T GO THROUGH EACH OF THE ARGUMENTS IDENTIFIED -- WELL, MAYBE T WILL. LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT FATHER'S BRIEF. BROADLY SPEAKING, IT WAS COMMUNICATION, FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE ADEQUATELY WITH THE PARENT, AND FAILURE TO GET THEIR CONJOINT COUNSELING SET UP WITH THE CHILDREN. RIGHT. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE FATHER'S BRIEF. IT 1S CONJOINT, IT 1S COMMUNICATION WITH THE PARENTS AND WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THOSE ISSUES ACTUALLY GO ANYAHERE, BUT I AM ACTUALLY GOING TO FIND THAT THERE WERE NOT REASONABLE SERVICES PROVIDED WITH RESPECT TO ANDREW AND RUSSELL FOR REASONS RELATED TO VISITATION, BUT, ON THE COMMUNICATION, AGAIN, SERVICES NEED TO BE REASONABLE. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE PERFECT. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE THE BEST THEY CAN BE. THEY NEED TO BE REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THE CONTEXT, AGAIN, IS CRITICAL. u a5 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 ar 28 525 AGAIN, THIS 1S A CASE INVOLVING PARENTS WHO HAVE SPENT YEAR'S EVADING AND STONEWALLING AND STYMYING ‘THE DEPARTMENT, ABSOLUTELY REFUSING TO COOPERATE OR COMMUNICATE, SO THEN THE CASE COMES IN, AND 17 LOOKS LIKE THIS PATTERN IS CONTINUING THROUGH THE DISPOSITION. THE PARENTS WERE NOT INTERVIEWED FOR THE DISPOSITION REPORT. ‘THEY ARE HERE AND THERE. THEY ARE STAYING IN HOTELS. ‘THEY ARE DIFFICULT 10 REACH. DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE arr. SO THE ~~ COULD THE DEPARTMENT HAVE TRIED HARDER TO COMMUNICATE BETTER, MORE REGULARLY, TRIED 70 CHASE THE PARENTS DOWN? OF COURSE, THEY COULD HAVE. 1 D0 ‘THINK THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER, AND T WOULD PREFER THAT THEY HAD. BUT IS IT POOR ENOUGH THAT IT IS NOT REASONABLE EFFORTS OR REASONABLE SERVICES, I DON'T THINK SO. THE WORKERS DID ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE ON A REGULAR BASIS WITH ‘THE PARENTS VIA E-MAIL AND/OR PHONE TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THEM. CAN WE MEET? HERE IS YOUR CASE PLAN. HERE ARE REFERRALS. CAN WE MEET? WHAT 1S GOING ON? AND DO YOU NEED ANYTHING FROM ME? AND OFTEN THEY DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM THE PARENTS. ‘THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID TRY TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. SOMETIMES IT WAS DIFFICULT GETTING INFORMATION OUT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS. THAT ALSO COMMONLY HAPPENS. YOU KNOW, I7 CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, AND I WISH IT HAD BEEN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS UNREASONABLE AT THE LEVEL THAT IT WAS, AND I THINK THE PARENTS REMAINED DIFFICULT 70 2 B 1 15 16 ” 18 9 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 526 COMMUNICATE WITH IN FACT, I THINK THAT THE FATHER HAS -- AT. LEAST THE FATHER. AS I RECALL, T DON'T RECALL ANY EVIDENCE OF MOTHER DOING THAT, BUT AT LEAST THE FATHER HAS APTEMPTED TO CREATE KIND OF A THIN PRETENSE OF BEING COOPERATIVE AND COMMUNICATIVE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, FATHER'S OWN EXHTBITS INCLUDE SOME PRINTOUTS OF SOME E-MAILS WHERE HE IS E-MAILING THE WORKER. AGAIN, IT IS THIS KIND OF THIN PRETENSE OF, HERE, I'M COMMUNICATING WITH YOU. YES, I ANT TO COMMUNICATE. YEAH, CAN YOU GET BACK TO ME. BUT THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HEADER ON THE E-MAIL, YOU SEE HE HAS COPIED HIS ATTORNEY. AND THE WORKER HAD INFORMED HIM AAT, I'M SORRY. WHEN YOU COPY YOUR ATTORNEY ON AN E-MAIL, T CAN'T RESPOND, SO IT'S, AGAIN, THIS KIND OF PRETENSE OF YES, I'M COMMUNICATING. YES, I'M RESPONDING, BUT WHEN HE DOES IT IN A WAY HE KNOWS THE WORKER CAN'T GET BACK TO HIM. SO THE COMMUNICATION ISSUE I THINK IS REALLY [A NONSTARTER AS FAR AS WHETHER THERE WERE REASONABLE SERVICES, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, AND T WISH THEY HAD, BUT THEY WERE REASONABLE [AS FOR THE CONJOINT AND THE INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING AS WELL, I THINK THAT IS ——- WELL, TT 1S REALLY THE CONJOINT, SETTING UP THE CONJOINT COUNSELING. AGAIN, 1 THINK THE EFFORTS THERE COULD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, BUT WERE THEY REASONABLE? I THINK THEY WERE. AND [ALSO BECAUSE THE CONJOINT COUNSELING, AT THE END OF THE 24 25 26 21 28 527 DAY, DOESN'T REALLY MAKE THAT MUCK DIFFERENCE TO THE REUNIFICATION EFFORTS. I MEAN, WEAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS, ARE THE PARENTS GOING TO GO ON NEGLECTING THE CHILDREN IF ‘THE CHILOREN ARE RETURNED? THAT 1S WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW. 50 THE CONJOINT ISN'T REALLY GOING TO MATTER. IN FACT, IT IS ABUNDANT, AS CONFIRMED BY MS. DEUKMEJTAN'S OWN TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT THEY DID AT THE CONJOINT SESSIONS THEY HAD. THEY DID SAND ART WITH THE CHILDREN AND STUFF, THIS IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN MR, CURLEY'S BRIEF, THAT 1S GREAT, AND I HOPE IT HELPED ‘THEIR RELATIONSHIP AND EVERYTHING, BUT HOW DOES IT SHOW ‘HAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO NEGLECT THE CHILDREN IN THE SAME WAY THEY DID BEFORE IF THE CHILDREN WERE RETURNED Now? 50, AGAIN, THERE WERE SOME EFFORTS TO SET UP CONJOINT. AGAIN, IT WAS HARD TO GET AHOLD OF THE PARENTS. THEY WERE MOVING AROUND HERE AND THERE, THEY WOULD SAY, OH, WE ARE GETTING A NEW HOME. CAN YOU INSPECTED IT? WE ARE ABOUT TO MOVE IN, THEN IT WOULD FALL THROUGH. THIS HAPPENS REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THE FILE, OH, YEAH. WE HAVE GOT THIS NEW PLACE. CAN YOU COME AND ASSESS IT. OH, No, IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. IT WAS ONLY IN APRIL, AGAIN, APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THEY FINALLY MOVED INTO A HOME WHERE, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THEY CONTINUE TO RESIDE. $0, UP UNTIL ‘THEN, THEY WERE ALL OVER PLACE NOT EASY TO REACH, NOT EASY ‘TO ARRANGE CONJOINT SESSIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO T JUST DON'T SEE HOW ANY OF THAT GOES ANYWHERE IN TERMS OF REASONABLE SERVICES. 10 ua a2 13 a as 16 uw 18 19 20 a 2 23 2a 25 26 2 28 528 BUT THE REASONABLE SERVICES ISSUE THAT I DO SEE AS TO ANDREW AND RUSSELL ONLY IS THE FAILURE TO LIBERALIZE THE MOTHER'S VISITS. 50, IN CONNECTION WITH THAT, I HAVE TO AODRESS THE CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER, SO THERE ARE CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO BOTH PARENTS RETRAINING BOTH PARENTS AND PROTECTING THE CHILOREN, BUT, AS OF JANUARY 25TH OF THIS YEAR AND FEBRUARY 7TH OF THIS YEAR -~ JANUARY FOR THE FATHER, FEBRUARY FOR THE MOTHER THOSE CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS WERE MODIFIED, SO THERE IS NO STAY AWAY COMPONENT TO THEM AT ALL. SO THEY JUST PROHIBIT, SO TO SPEAK, NEGATIVE CONTACT. No HARASSING, STALKING, ET CETERA. BUT THERE 1S NO STAY-AWAY COMPONENT, WHATSOEVER, AND I CONFIRMED THIS WITH THE JUDGE WHO ISSUED THE ORDERS THAT THOSE CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS AS THEY EXIST NOW WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONSISTENT WITH RETURNING THE CHILDREN TO THE CUSTODY OF THE PARENTS. THERE 1S NO STAY-AWAY COMPONENT AT ALL. SO THOSE DID NOT PRESENT ANY IMPEDIMENT TO LIBERALIZED VISITATION AS OF JANUARY 25 FOR THE FATHER, FEBRUARY 7TH FOR THE MOTHER. AGAIN, THE TSSUES IN THE HOUSE ARE MEDICAL NEGLECT, DENTAL NEGLECT, EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, DIRTY HOME SO WHAT PUZZLES ME IS, ONCE THE PROTECTIVE ORDER WAS OUT OF THE WAY, WHY WEREN'T THE MOTHER'S VISITS LIBERALIZED TO UNYONITORED? I'M NOT AMARE OF ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR NOT DOING THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH SHE COULD MEDICALLY AND DENTALLY OR EDUCATIONALLY NEGLECT THEM 1§ a0 u 2 3 aa a5 16 uv 18 as 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 21 28 528 THE COURSE OF A ONE, OR TWO, OR THREE OR FOUR-HOUR UNWONTTORED VISTT OR EVEN AN OVERNIGHT VISIT. Now, THIS IS A VERY ODD ISSUE IN MY OPINION. 1 HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED IT BEFORE. I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY HEARD OF ANYONE MAKING A NO REASONABLE SERVICES FINDING ON THE BASIS OF FATLURE TO LIBERALIZE VISITATION BECAUSE, ORDINARILY, THE PARENTS REQUEST THE LIBERALIZED VISITATION FROM THE COURT. IF THE DEPARTMENT 1S DRAGGING THEIR FEET ABOUT LIBERALIZATION, THEN THE PARENTS ASK THE COURT TO ‘ORDER IT, AND THEN IT IS ADDRESSED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY THE couRT. HERE I AM AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE 1 CAME ON THE CASE SO LATE. FROM READING THE FILE, I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY PRIOR REQUEST FOR SUCH RELIEF FROM ‘HE COURT. AND I ALSO ADDRESSED THIS AT THE CONFERENCE WITH ALL COUNSEL, AND MINORS' COUNSEL AT LEAST INDICATED THEY DID NOT HAVE IN THETR NOTES ANY RECORD OF ANY PRIOR REQUEST FROM THE COURT TO ORDER LIBERALTZED VISITS. THERE WAS, I THINK ~~ I BELIEVE IT WAS ON MAY 29, THE ORIGINAL .21(E) DATE, THE MINUTE ORDER FROM THAT DAY DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT TO ASSESS FOR LIBERALIZED VISITATION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF LIBERALIZED VISITS WERE REQUESTED THAT DAY OR JUST THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUESTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T MY CASE. $0, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, ‘HERE WASN'T ANY SUCH REQUEST MADE OF THE COURT. USUALLY ‘THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS, AND THE COURT ADDRESSES IT, AND THAT IS IT. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. BUT, STILL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION 530 TO PROVIDE REASONABLE SERVICES. THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISCRETION TO LIBERALIZE THE VISITATION. 17 HAS TO EXERCISE THAT DISCRETION REASONABLY, AND 1 JUST CAN'T IDENTIFY ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR NOT LIBERALIZING THE MOTHER'S VISITS AFTER FEBRUARY 7. Now, WR. CURLEY'S BRIEF ALSO ADDRESS THAT SOME, BUT I JUST WAS NOT PERSUADED BY ANY OF HIS ARGUMENTS FOR WHY THE MOTHER'S VISITS WEREN'T LIBERALIZED. I DON'T KNOW IP I'LL BE ABLE TO PUT MY HANDS ON IT RIGHT NOW. BUT 1 JUST DID NOT FIND THE ARGUMENTS FROM COUNTY COUNSEL PERSUASIVE ON THAT POINT AT ALL. NR. LACILENTO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK FOR ONE CLARIFICATION? THE COURT: BRIEFLY, YES. MR. LACILENTO: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MOTHER'S VISITS. ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO RULE ON DAD'S VISITS? ‘THE COURT: T'LL GET THERE. MR. LACILENTO: I JUST HEAR MOTHER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. THE COURT: I'LL GET THERE. RIGHT. MR. CURLEY'S ARGUMENT -- THIS IS ON PAGE 9 OF THE DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF -- SAYS, "THE DEPARTMENT ARGUES THAT THE COURT MADE THE SAME DECISION NOT 70 LIBERALIZE THE PARENTS' VISITATION.” AND THERE WERE VARIOUS INTERMEDIATE HEARINGS BETWEEN THE DISPOSTTION AND THE .21(E) DATE. AGAIN, 1 DIDN'T SEE -- MAYBE T MISSED 17, OR MAYBE IT HAPPENED, AND TT 18 JUST NOT RECORDED IN THE FILE, BUT I DION'T SEE ANY REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO ORDER LIBERALIZED VISITS THAT WAS 10 u 2 13 44 45 16 v 18 19 20 a 22 23 2 25 26 27 28 531 DENIED. SO, AGAIN, THE DEPARTWENT STILL HAS ITS O#N OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN A REASONABLE MANNER, I JUST DON'T SEE WHAT THE BASIS TS FOR NOT LIBERALIZING THE MOTHER'S VISTTS. SO THAT LOOKS LIKE A FAILURE OF REASONABLE SERVICES AS TO ANDREW AND RUSSELL. FOR THE FATHER, LIKEWISE —- FOR THE FATHER, HE HAS HAD UNMONITORED, T BELIEVE, SINCE DISPOSITION. THE OVERNIGHT VISITS -- I TAKE IT, AT LEAST ONE PROBLEM THERE IS THAT THE PARENTS WERE RESIDING TOGETHER, AND THE MOTHER'S VISITS WERE STILL MONITORED. ALTHOUGH HE WASN'T AN APPROVED MONITOR, STILL, IN GENERAL, 17 IS HARD TO HAVE AN OVERNIGHT VISIT WITH SOMEONE WHO I$ SUBJECT TO MONITORED VISITATION. UNLESS YOU HAVE A MONITOR WHO TS AWAKE ALL NIGHT OR SOMETHING, THERE IS GENERALLY NO WAY TO DO IT. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE HOME BECAUSE TO DO OVERNIGHT VISITS THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOCATION THAT CAN BE ASSESSED AS APPROPRIATE TO DO THOSE VISITS, AND THE PARENTS WERE, AGAIN, PLACE TO PLACE, HOTELS, UNTIL APRIL, BUT, STILL, GIVEN THE HOLDUP WITH THE MOTHER'S LIBERALIZATION, 1 THINK THAT THAT IMPEDED THE LIBERALIZATION OF FATHER'S VISITS AS WELL. THE FACT THAT THE MOTHER WAS STILL MONITORED, AGAIN, FOR NO REASONABLE BASIS I CAN IDENTIFY, 1 TAINK THAT THAT THEN INTERFERED WITH THE LIBERALIZATION OF THE FATHER'S VISITS IN ADDITION TO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE HOUSING. SO AT LEAST SINCE APRIL, AND THE HOME WAS 10 u 2 ab a as 16 uv 18 as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 a1 28 532 ASSESSED EITHER LATE APRIL OR MAY -- RIGHT NOW T DON'T REMEMBER WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DID THE ASSESSMENT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MAY. BUT, AT LEAST SINCE THEN -- MAYBE THE ASSESSMENT WAS IN JUNE. BUT LEAST SINCE THEN, 1 DON'T KNOW WHY THE FATHER'S VISITS COULDN'T HAVE BEEN LIBERALIZED TO OVERNIGHTS, SAY WITH THE MOTHER NOT BEING THERE, OR THE MOTHER TO BE LIBERALIZED TO UNNONITORED OR OVERNIGHTS. AGAIN, GIVEN THE ISSUES PRESENTED, WHAT DID THEY THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF ONE VISIT FoR ONE NIGHT? 80, FOR THE FAILURE TO LIBERALTZE BOTH PARENTS! VISITS FOR ANDREW AND RUSSELL, I THINK THERE WAS A FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE SERVICES. FOR LEONE IT IS A DIFFERENT PICTURE BECAUSE LEONE HAS ALL THESE VERY SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS. HE 18 VERY MEDICALLY FRAGILE, HE -- BECAUSE OF THE CHEMO, BE HAS A WEAK INMUNE SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY SUBJECT 70 INFECTION. HE HAS GOT ALL THESE DIFFERENT MEDICATIONS 1 DIFFERENT DOSES THAT HE HAS TO TAKE ON DIFFERENT DAYS AT DIFFERENT TIMES. TP TS ACTUALLY QUITE COMPLEX, AND THERE JUST ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PARENTS HAVE LEARNED HOW TO DO ALL THAT STUFF SO THEY COULD CARE FOR LEONE UNMONITORED FOR A LONG STRETCH, LET ALONE FOR AN OVERNIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IS ANOTHER ARGUMENT ON THE REASONABLE SERVICES, THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN -- DONE NORE TO GET THE PARENTS THE MEDICAL TRAINING THAT THEY 10 u 2 a u 15 16 7 18 as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 a 28 533 NEEDED. I DON'T BUY THAT EITHER. AGAIN, WHAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY DOING WAS KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH THE PARENTS, GETTING IN CONTACT WITH THEM, ASKING TO MEET, ASKING WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THEM, AND ASKING TF THEY NEEDED ANYTHING. THE PARENTS STRIKE ME AS INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF LEONE'S SITUATION, THEY ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF WHAT HIS MEDICAL NEEDS ARE AND HOW MEDICALLY FRAGILE HE 28, AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO, BROADLY SPEAKING, TF HE WERE TO BE RETURNED TO THEIR CARE SO THEY COULD PARENT HIM SAFELY. $0 IF THEY ACTUALLY WERE REALLY TRYING 70 GET ‘TRIS DONE, THEY WOULD BE ON THE PHONE TO THE GRANDFATHER EVERY DAY, WHEN IS THE NEXT APPOINTMENT? WE WILL BE THERE, WE WILL BE THERE EARLY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO KNOW EVERY DETATL, EVERY PILL HE NEEDS TO TAKE, GAT IT 18, WHAT TIME, WHAT DAY, EVERYTHING, WE NEED TO KNOW ALL OF I? SO WE WILL BE THERE EARLY EVERY TIME SO WE CAN LEARN IT SO WE CAN GET HIM RETURNED TO OUR CARE BECAUSE UNTIL WE CAN SHOW NE KNOW THAT STUFF, WE KNOW HE CAN'T COME BACK. IT IS TOO DANGEROUS FOR HIM. SO I THINK THE PARENTS -- THEY ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT, AND THEY COULD GET ON IT EASILY, AND T DON'T THINK THAT THE DEPARTMENT —— AGAIN, COULD THE DEPARTMENT HAVE DONE MORE TO FACILITATE THAT? SURE. OF COURSE, THEY COULD HAVE. BUT WHAT THEY DID I THINK WAS REASONABLE. 80, FOR LEONE, THE VISITATION, I DON'T THINK -- I THINK WAS REASONABLE NOT TO LIBERALTZE THE 10 n 2 13 u 15 16 wv 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 534 VISITATION FOR LEONE BECAUSE OF HIS MEDICAL FRAGILITY, 418 HIGH MEDICAL NEED, AND THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PARENTS ARE IN A POSITION NOW TO SAFELY ADDRESS THOSE NEEDS UNMONITORED FOR A SIGNIFICANT STRETCH OF TIME. SO T THINK REASONABLE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED WITH RESPECT TO LEONE BUT NOT ANDREW AND RUSSELL. Now, AS FOR THE TIMING, THIS IS A .21(E) HEARING INCREDIBLY, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE 22 MONTHS SINCE DETENTION, 22 MONTHS, DOING THE .21(6). SO THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REASONABLE SERVICES FINDING. SO, GIVEN THAT, I DON'T SEE HOW I CAN TERMINATE REUNIFICATION SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO ANDREW AND RUSSELL, AND ALSO I 00 BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST FOR REUNIFICATION SERVICES 70 CONTINUE. AS FOR LEONE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS -- 1 AM FINDING REASONABLE SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO HIM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY BASIS -- SO I THINK THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO TERMINATE SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO HIM IS SOUND. THE PARENTS ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF TIME WITH RESPECT TO HIM, AND REASONABLE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED. THE MOTHER: YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT: NO, MA'AM. ‘THE MOTHER: YOUR HONOR, T OBJECT. I OBJECT. THE COURT: MATAM. SORRY. MA‘AM. ‘HE MOTHER: YOUR HONOR, WE JUST GOT MEDICAL TRAINING, AND I DID ASK JUDGE JASKOL FOR TRAINING FROM THE SOCTAL WORKER. THE COURT: MA'AM, MA‘AM, MA'AM, YOU NEED TO QUIET a0 u 2 B a a5 16 u 18 1 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 21 28 535 Down. THE MOTHER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MA'AM, IF YOU SPEAK OUT OF TURN LIKE THAT, TF YOU CAN'T CONTROL YOURSELF AND REFRAIN FROM DOING THAT, T WILL HAVE TO HAVE YOU EXCUSED. I'M VERY RELUCTANT TO DO THAT, BUT I WILL DO IT, SO YOUR ATTORNEY IS HERE TO SPEAK FOR YOU, AND HE CAN 00 THAT. THE MOTHER: THANK YOU. I HAVE MANY OBJECTIONS. THE COURT: 1 WILL ALSO ADD THAT EVIDENCE IS CLOSED. SOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE I AAVE TODAY. IT CLOSED SOME TIME AGO. $0 LAST COUPLE ISSUES BEFORE JUST GETTING on WITH THE RULING. ONE TS THE GENERAL ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CASE PLAN VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS. THIS TS SOMETHING THAT COMES UP TN MANY CASES. ONE ISSUB IS DID THE PARENTS 00 THE THINGS ON THE CASE PLAN? DID THEY CHECK BOXES? WENT TO PARENTING? YES. DID SOME INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING? YES. AND SO FORTH BUT THE FURTHER ISSUE IS WHAT TS THE SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS? DID THEY REALLY MAKE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS ADDRESSING THE ISSUES, THE UNDERLYING 1SSUES? HAVE THEY REALLY MADE A CHANGE? WHAT HAS CHANGED? WHAT HAS CHANGED? THAT IS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE. SO HERE THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM PARENTS’ COUNSEL CONCERNING RISK OF DETRIMENT ALL HAD TO 00 WITH COMPLIANCE BUT NOT A LOT ABOUT MEANINGFUL PROGRESS, AND THERE WERE SOME REFERENCES TO ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY. THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN TESTIMONY AS WELL.