So holds In re G.G. (Cal. Ct. App. June 29, 2010), by a 2-1 vote. (The court order said that “Father to be in individual counseling to address issues with a male therapist regarding father‘s racist and sexist views,” but the appellate opinion seems to treat the counseling as focused solely on the father’s use of “sexist and racist remarks” and “repeated angry use of racial, ethnic and gender epithets.”)
This isn’t a divorce case; the father was a single father of twins who were born using an “anonymous egg donor” and a “surrogate mother.” The children were placed in foster care on the grounds that the father had “used inappropriate discipline,” one of the children “has exhibited explosive, aggressive, uncontrollable behavior requiring therapeutic, psychiatric intervention, and the father failed to obtain timely, necessary therapeutic, psychiatric intervention for the child despite numerous recommendations for treatment,” and the father “has provided a chaotic home environment including regular and consistent confrontational behavior with the children‘s school and in the community.” One of the conditions imposed for the father to get his children back was that he get counseling related to his sexist and racist statements.
Here’s the majority’s justification for its upholding the condition:
There is substantial evidence the father was angry on many of the occasions upon which he used racist, ethnic and sexist epithets. In other words, the use of racist, ethnic and sexist epithets often arose in the context of anger management issues. For example, as noted, during the interview with a social worker, Ms. Mostowfi, the father while speaking loudly and belligerently, stated: ‘“[Y]ou have an attitude. You have an accent. You don’t understand English. You Iranian, you want me to kiss your ass, go back home.”” According to a supplemental report prepared by Ms. Rytterager, during the conversation with Ms. Mostowfi, the father made “numerous” racial slurs. Also, the father called Ms. Mostowfi a “bitch woman.” Further, he said Ms. Mostowfi could not “speak” English. When asked whether the twins had any food allergies, the father said to Ms. Mostowfi, ‘“Yeah, they’re allergic to Iranian food and Iranian incense.” When advised Ms. Juhasz was assigned the twins’ case, the father loudly and belligerently told her, “‘[Y]ou send a bitchwoman to get me, a single father?’” Throughout the conversation with Ms. Mostowfi, he was verbally abusive as he made derogative references to her culture, called her a “bitch” and hung up on her. In the Information For Court Officer, Ms. Gadson reported the father “displays extremely uncontrolled and violent behaviors with adults in a professional setting” and said to a social worker, ‘“[F]uck you’ and ‘mother fuck you, go back to Africa ….’”
Further, the father used racist, ethnic and sexist epithets while angrily interacting with school staff. For example, Ms. Komlos, the school principal, had to have “School Resource Officer Navarro” intervene when the father’s temper began to escalate. The father made fun of Officer Navarro’s accent. In January 2009, Ms. Komlos had to summon the police because the father was angrily yelling at an African-American man. Also, the father called Ms. Simon a ‘“black crow’” because she was an African-American.
The circumstances which led to the jurisdictional order involved in material part the father’s angry response to G.G.’s failure to keep her room clean and his chaotic rage when interacting with the twins’ teachers and other school staff. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude that the father’s use of racist and sexual epithets, often under circumstances where he was angry, was but part of his broader anger management problem. The challenged aspect of the reunification order responds to the circumstances of this case.
Further, the department is legally obligated to carry out the reunification program….
The juvenile court could reasonably conclude that for the reunification plan to achieve its mandated goal — resolving the problems that gave rise to dependency jurisdiction — social workers must be able to effectively work with the father. The department is statutorily obligated to provide reunification services. We need not reiterate the father’s habitual use of insulting racial and gender epithets uttered when he is angry or in a calmer state of mind to the child care professionals in this case. It is difficult for social workers to provide those services when they are consistently subjected to racist, ethnic and sexist epithets. The ability of the father to work with social workers and school personnel and thereby achieve the results of the reunification plan will be enhanced if he understands, which counseling on the subject can help him comprehend, that in a diverse culture such as in Los Angeles County, he cannot consistently insult women and all persons who are different from him who are working with him to reunify the family. The juvenile court has discretion to design a reunification plan that hopefully will work and take reasonable steps to make it achieve the desired result.
The father argues that since the jurisdictional findings do not explicitly speak to his use of racial, ethnic and gender invective, the reunification plan could not address that issue. As noted, there is substantial evidence the father, when angry, regularly uses racist, ethnic and sexist epithets. And, the juvenile court could reasonably find the father’s repeated use of racist, ethnic and sexist epithets whether while he is angry or calm interferes with the implementation of the legally mandated reunification plan. There is no statutory requirement a jurisdictional finding recite every aspect of parental unfitness that will eventually constitute the specifics of the reunification program. The reunification plan must be designed to resolve the conditions which led to the jurisdictional finding. Here, the juvenile court recognized the father’s use of racial, ethnic and gender epithets is part of his cycle of anger and interferes with the implementation of the reunification program. By addressing this matter in counseling, the juvenile court reasonably could find the other issues of excessive discipline, a chaotic home environment and angry interactions with school personnel could be resolvable, all of which is in the twins’ best interests.
The dissent thought that the non-epithet related allegations against the father were generally not well-founded, and continued:
It is apparent that dependency jurisdiction was asserted on this ground because of Father’s argumentative and confrontational attitude, and his racist and sexist comments to social workers and others. Like the majority, I find his comments deplorable, but there is no evidence that Father’s bad temper or deplorable remarks created a risk of serious physical harm to these children. Nor do I see anything in the dependency law which says that parents and children can be separated because a parent has deplorable beliefs — and it is easy to see the great harm which would ensue if it did.It is obvious, then, that I do not believe that the dependency court could order Father into counseling to address his racist and sexist remarks. The juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion a dispositional order in accord with this discretion, but the discretion is not unlimited. “The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.” I would reverse the “chaotic home environment” finding which is the only jurisdictional finding which can be construed to refer to Father’s racist and sexist remarks. In my view, such statements cannot be the basis for assertion of dependency jurisdiction, no matter who they are made to. Thus, a parent may not be ordered to go into counseling concerning such statements, as part of a reunification plan.
josh bornstein says:
EV,
I am not sure if this is really a remarkable case, in actual practice. I have had, literally, dozens of these cases, and the Dep. judges do indeed assume a huge latitude in fashioning dispo orders. What is rare is for these cases to make it up to the appellate level, and it’s almost unheard of (at least, based on the 60-odd cases I appealed over the years) for the higher court not to depublish its findings. Sincere congrats to the appellate court for deciding to publish its opinion. Since pretty much every Dep. Ct judge (at least in LA country, to the best of my understanding) is not afraid to use his or her discretion in re dispo orders, the holding in G.G should not have a large effect–other than giving more caselaw authority for what’s already being done. (And perhaps, emboldening some judges to push the envelope even further?)
The case brings back fond memories of Dep Ct, and I remember one of my first cases, when the father–seeing that I had a Jewish last name, objected in open court to my appointment on his behalf (and objected to another Jewish lawyer’s appointment to represent the mother in the same case), since we Jews were “the twin pillars of deception and evil.” Ah . . . good times . . . .
June 30, 2010, 8:02 pmDavid Welker says:
EV:
Thanks for the description and excerpts. Any thoughts on this case?
June 30, 2010, 8:18 pmPeter Bepler says:
I submit this is far more serious than “mere” viewpoint discrimination, on the basis of which, say, a college student is verbally harrassed in class for views not in keeping with the professor’s on the subject matter. An obstreperous, verbally abusive man is, for that reason alone, deprived of custody of his children. How much further can we allow this sort of behavior by bureaucrats before the most basic freedoms no longer exist? There is simply no evidence this man is not a competent father. What he is, is disrespectful of bureaucrats, with a deplorable racist overtone to his interactions. It is not surprising the child services bureaucracy struck back with the heaviest penalty in their arsenal- loss of custody- but is it tolerable?
June 30, 2010, 8:19 pmrichard says:
From Peter Bepler:There is simply no evidence this man is not a competent father.
You obviously only read the portion of the opinion about the rationale for the counseling order and not the rest of it. This “competent” father beat up one of his kids, put a burning cigarette in the ear of the other, failed to have one of the kid’s decaying teeth treated because he didn’t want to wait in line with illegal Mexicans, etc. Read the complete opinion and then make the argument that there is no evidence that the father isn’t competent. He’s a raging sadistic monster and keeping these kids with him is tantamount to sentencing them to vicious abuse and worse.
June 30, 2010, 8:42 pmGuest14 says:
Won’t somebody please think of the sexists and racists!
June 30, 2010, 8:43 pmA.W. says:
Yeah, I think this is all very troubling. I would say this. The court can reasonably require the man to behave in a courteous manner toward the government actors. That includes not insulting the counselors constantly. The court can require a certain amount of decorum in dealing with him.
But it should be limited to the decorum element and not the attitudes underneath. He has a God given right to be a racist as an element of his God-given right to be an idiot. But the court can reasonably require him to contain himself.
June 30, 2010, 9:03 pmCornellian says:
No comment on the facts, but In re GG is the most awesome case name of the decade.
June 30, 2010, 9:30 pmStrict says:
Someone called the Child Abuse Hotline on this guy.
His kids said that he hit them, spanked them, pulled their ears, pulled their hair, and yelled at them a lot.
The grandmother said that he has a problem with alcohol and drinks a ton when he’s upset.
When the school called him after one of the kids got seriously hurt at school, he didn’t respond.
Each of those things in isolation might not be so awful [all parents have yelled at their kids; probably most have spanked or pulled the ears at least once; probably most have ignored a phone call from school], but all of them put together in an atmosphere of rage and anger does sound chaotic.
The court doesn’t seem to really care about his use of bad words. Rather, the focus is on anger management. The dude needs to calm down and interact more civilly with his fellow people. AW is right – it’s not unreasonable for the court to require him to contain himself.
June 30, 2010, 9:35 pmA. Zarkov says:
Is this case not one of neglect and abusive of children? Why bring in all the PC stuff?
If the father really wanted his children then he would behave himself. The social workers and mediators can be hard to take, and generally belong to the moron class, at least the ones I’ve seen operate in California. (Although I knew a few who were excellent.) But generally they are so stupid you can easily out wit them and get what you want.
I know one case where mom used to beat the kids with lamp cord. Father tried to get the court-appointed mediator to listen to him, but she refused. He told me she had a bookcase full of feminist books in her office. Finally mom abandoned the kids and he got them by default.
June 30, 2010, 9:47 pmKamal says:
If this guy hit his children, that’s a much more compelling reason for not letting him have custody.
June 30, 2010, 9:52 pmBruce Hayden says:
I would not be as categorical as you here, as I believe that there is a time and a place for corporal punishment. There are some kids, esp. boys, and I may have been one, who, in the end, only respond to such. But, by all indications, this father went well beyond that.
June 30, 2010, 10:28 pmStacy says:
It looks like Father lost custody because of the abuse, not because of his views. On appeal, he apparently only questioned the order to attend counseling. That seems like an odd item to choose to appeal, but as others have pointed out, the order is neither unprecedented nor unreasonable (though certainly debatable) At any rate, there’s nothing to suggest that his kids were taken from him over his prejudiced views.
June 30, 2010, 10:29 pmKamal says:
I disagree completely. Once you teach a child, who is extremely impressionable, that physical force is a method for solving disagreements, you’ve harmed them. As an adult, you can’t just hit someone who isn’t doing what you want, yet that’s one of the first lessons you are teaching these young people. How can you rationalize that? “Might makes right”. “I’m their parent”, blah blah blah. It’s abuse. And wrong.
June 30, 2010, 10:52 pmsubpatre says:
Kamal writes: “I disagree completely. Once you teach a child, who is extremely impressionable, that physical force is a method for solving disagreements, you’ve harmed them.”
What a load! Physical force is the method we –that means our society– officially sanctions, approves of, and uses to settle disagreements. Maybe you don’t like it, but it’s true.
Teaching children the truth is not ‘harm’.
June 30, 2010, 11:06 pmDave N. says:
Having read the opinion, there are some very odd things about this case.
For example, why did the juvenile court order a Kosher diet for the kids while they were in foster care (evidently the foster family is not Jewish and did not otherwise keep Kosher) when the father disagreed? It seems like an imposition of religious beliefs on the children by the government, which raised a First Amendment red flag to me. In isolation that just seems odd and the decision has no explanation for why it was ordered.
That said, the majority and the dissent paint two very different pictures of this guy, though I came away with the very firm conclusion that he is more than a few degrees off plumb.
This guy will never get my vote for Father of the Year and I do not question that the removal was justified. He seems like an obnoxious jerk.
I do find it troubling, however, that the majority relies upon unfounded allegations in reaching some of its conclusions. There seems to be just a bit of a due process problem in doing that.
It is a sad case. G.G. sounds like a very troubled 6 or 7 year old. The father is indisputably a creep. I hope they all get help. They certainly need it.
June 30, 2010, 11:08 pmDangerMouse says:
“Sexist” language, huh? Will that apply to people who think kids deserve a mother instead of two dads? Or perhaps the Amish will be systematically liquidated of their children because the men work in the fields and the women sew quilts?
I swear, that people even think that this is ok is ludicrous. So much for the ACLU defending the right of the KKK or other hate groups, in a strategy to protect the most offensive of society so that we’re all defended. They can march, but child support will take away their children.
June 30, 2010, 11:11 pmkazinski says:
That is just an ignorant platitude. Children tell you how they prefer to be disciplined, for some it is a simple timeout, others it is withholding rewards like allowance or treats, others it is grounding. And for some it is spanking. But all children are different, when you find a type of punishment that they respond to, then that is what you use. I always told my children they only time I would ever spank them is when their ears weren’t working, and the point of spanking them was to get the blood flowing to their ears so they could listen better. And it works.
June 30, 2010, 11:12 pmSub Specie AEternitatis says:
I agree that sufficiently severe physical abuse of children or neglect of their long-term health, as is alleged in this case, can be sufficient cause to take the momentous step of separating parent and child. If that was all there was to this case, it hardly would have made the Volokh Conspiracy.
But that duly authorized courts in this nation feel authorized to exercise their vast powers on a discretionary basis to coerce political conformance is appalling. That as, Josh and others on previous threads here credibly assert, this is perfectly par for the course in family court is beyond appalling.
The prospect that I could be separated from my children on the basis of having unapproved political views or perhaps a failure to politely conceal my estimation of the value of “social workers” should I be unfortunate enough to encounter one does not bear thinking about. And when one does, the thoughts engendered would doubtlessly be regarded by social workers as just basis for further punitive steps.
June 30, 2010, 11:19 pmwhit says:
as long as you concede that this is your OPINION, and not The Law ™. where i live, it is perfectly legal for parents, legal guardians, and even teachers (although any public school would have a policy against it) to physically discipline kids.
so andrea dworkin IS good for something?
June 30, 2010, 11:25 pmCareless says:
Of course, children learn or instinctively know this on their own without you teaching them, so I’m not sure what you think not spanking them will accomplish. I’m not sure how far down the chordate tree fighting over stuff goes, but it has to be a very long way.
June 30, 2010, 11:52 pmMalvolio says:
First they came for the sexists and racists…
Seriously. Of course, rights are first stripped from unpopular groups. Then, once the precedent is well established, they go after everybody else.
June 30, 2010, 11:58 pmExternality says:
“It is not enough to obey Big Brother, you must love him” – 1984
July 1, 2010, 12:07 amOrenWithAnE says:
I am perfectly comfortable with saying that once you have lost custody of your children for severe physical abuse (quoted above), the government may impose a higher standard on return of the children than it could have in the initial proceeding.
That is, it need not be a symmetric procedure — there is behavior that is insufficient to warrant removing the children but nevertheless is sufficient grounds to block their return. The instant case is a nearly perfect example of this. The State did not remove the children because of sexist or racist remarks, and if they did I would absolutely oppose it.
July 1, 2010, 12:23 amDangerMouse says:
Exactly. Does anyone believe that groups the libs despise won’t suffer under this given the chance? Catholics, Orthodox Jews and Protestants, the Amish? Who else has “sexist” opinions that the state can kidnap children from?
July 1, 2010, 12:24 amPerseus says:
the father is 55 years old; the mother is an anonymous egg donor; the twins were carried to term by a surrogate mother (p. 3)
Paging Dr. Leon Kass or even the eggandsperm guy (John Howard).
July 1, 2010, 12:41 amPer Son says:
Dangermouse,
The children were taken because of the abuse and neglect, not the sexist and racist language. The case was not about whether he should get the kids back, but instead, about whether the reunification plan should include counseling on his use of certain types of language.
July 1, 2010, 12:46 amKen Arromdee says:
Clearly you don’t actually believe that spanking improves blood flow to the ears. So what’s the point of saying this, other than to show that you’re capable of exercising raw power by giving an explanation that both you and the kids know is a lie, and getting away with it?
July 1, 2010, 2:11 amlargo says:
Perhaps the point is that he believes that phrase to be a metaphor for getting his children to heed him, and that he believes that his children understand the metaphor? (Should I assume that you would not deem him to be lying if he were to say that his children were “the apple of his eye”? (You might in the sense that this phrase in inappropriate to anyone who punished his children that way, but this is not what I’m speaking of.))
July 1, 2010, 4:04 amlargo says:
(On a related note, would you make a distinction between the following two phrases?
(1) “actually believing that spanking improves blood flow to the ears”
(2) “believing that spanking actually improves blood flow to the ears”
They seem different to me, and in a way that makes (2) sound much more problematic
than (1).)
- L.
July 1, 2010, 4:10 amDoc Merlin says:
Um… but in the real world, physical force IS a method for solving disagreements. What do you think police are? What do you think the military is for?
July 1, 2010, 7:26 amImADad says:
I’m a single father with custody. This guy is a bad dad. He lost custody because he was physically abusive and negligent. He didn’t even appeal the lost custody; instead, he tied up the courts with an appeal because the counselors required him to find a counselor to help him not be a verbally abusive racist moron when interacting school officials and social workers.
He has a “right to be a racist,” but not to verbally abusive. My ex lost custody in part because of similar behavior toward a custody evaluator. When it comes to kids, courts take verbal abuse very seriously, as they should. Two of my children ended up on suicide watch because of things their mother said to them.
July 1, 2010, 7:43 amwolfefan says:
Per Son –
Dangermouse is too busy billing hisi $685 an hour to be troubled to read the case.
July 1, 2010, 8:01 amegd says:
For those who see nothing wrong with this court order, how would you feel about the court requiring the father to attend weekly religious services?
I’m sure that wouldn’t raise a First Amendment flag, would it?
July 1, 2010, 8:53 amStacy says:
ImADad: “He didn’t even appeal the lost custody; instead, he tied up the courts with an appeal because the counselors required him to find a counselor to help him not be a verbally abusive racist moron when interacting school officials and social workers.”
Yes. With the exception that none of them (to my knowledge) were bigoted in any particular way, this is the kind of frivolous BS that soured me on the fathers’ rights group I attended during my custody case. Half the guys were convinced they could singlehandedly overpower the state bureaucracy with red tape, and the other half spent all their time trying fruitlessly to drag them back to reality. The only one with his eye on the ball was the lawyer who sponsored the group. I ended up paying him as a private consultant (while I used another excellent lawyer not publicly associated with MRA) which was a useful arrangement.
July 1, 2010, 8:54 amShelbyC says:
WTF?!? If the firest amendment means anything, it means that it can’t do that.
July 1, 2010, 8:59 amneimoller says:
dangermouse never lets the facts get in the way of a good rant about the “libs”. his reliable hysteria is always good for a laugh.
July 1, 2010, 9:00 amOrenWithAnE says:
If the court was requiring this for a father wanting to retain custody, having committed no other acts to bring into question his parenting — absolutely not. If the father had already (justifiably, it seems conceded) lost custody and was required to show even a shred of decency before getting the children back, then it’s hard to oppose.
The disposition of the case matters — once you lost the kids for a good reason you are in a much weaker position to claim violation of your rights.
July 1, 2010, 9:01 amMike says:
Wait… so you’re saying that it *would* be ok for a court to order religious attendance as a condition for getting your kids back?
I agree that the threshold for getting your kids back should be higher… but that doesn’t mean you throw out the first amendment. The higher standard has to be defined in speech-neutral and religious-neutral ways. Being racist asshole has nothing to do with his ability to be a father.
Now, if he were ordered simply to attend anger management sessions, since the anger was directly linked to his poor parenting that removed his children, that would be something else.
July 1, 2010, 9:25 amSub Specie AEternitatis says:
He does not? Prof. Volokh is more up to date on the issue of the First Amendment exceptions than I am, but the last time I surveyed the field I do not recall encountering a “politeness exception.”
But if so, could we please just arrest those marching anti-capitalist morons who periodically screw up traffic here in DC (and most recently in Toronto, I understand)? A lot of their signs are rather rude. And, if we are going to be consequentialist about this, their protests are far more likely to cause catastrophically harmful policies than the comments of all racist idiots in this country combined.
July 1, 2010, 9:37 amShelbyC says:
As he should, they’re supposed to help him treat this kids correctly. How he treats the government is none of their business.
July 1, 2010, 9:56 amSeamus says:
But physical force *is* a method for solving disagreements. That disagreement over slavery back in the 1850s, for example, was solved pretty decisively by physical force in the 1860s.
July 1, 2010, 9:57 amSeamus says:
Cops do it all the time. I’m thinking, for example, of the woman who got tased when she refused to stop talking on her cell phone for the cop who’d pulled her over for a traffic violation.
July 1, 2010, 10:01 amBill Twist says:
There *ARE* some odd things about this:
That, combined with allegations of rodents in the home that are denied by defense witnesses including the landlord, and some other seemingly irrelevent things, it almost sounds like they are throwing stuff up against a wall and seeing what sticks. Taking bubble baths as a red flag for sexual abuse? Please.
Plus, I’m rather skeptical about claims of abuse based on a bruise and some scratches. As a foster parent, I’ve had a child come into my care who was pulled from their home based upon allegations of physical abuse. It ended up turning out that the allegations were largely due to bad blood between the person making the allegations and the parent, and the bruises on the child which initially concerned us were adequately explained by the fact that the child was a bit of a ‘daredevil’ who liked to jump and climb on stuff. The child would occasionally fall, and mostly just shake it off and continue playing. We had to set rules against it in the house, which the child obeyed, but that behavior was just enthusiatic physical play, and of course we allowed it in appropriate venues (playgrounds, backyard, etc.). Still, it gave the appearance that the child was being abused, because the child always had some bruises.
In that case, because the parent bent to the wishes of the court and attended everything required, the parent got the child back relatively quickly, and it became obvious that the entire thing was based upon a personality dispute with the person who called Social Services in the first place.
I could see how that case could have turned out like this one very easily if the parent was belligerent instead of willing to work with Social Services and the Court.
Don’t ever piss-off anyone who is obligated by law to report suspected child abuse to Child Protective Services.
July 1, 2010, 10:11 amBill Twist says:
You will never hear me say “Violence never solves anything”, which is a common platitude, and one my parents taught me. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, it was just one of those things you learn about as a child that turns out to be a fairy tale. I always say “Violence *RARELY* solves anything, but there are times when it is absolutely required”.
July 1, 2010, 10:16 amOrenWithAnE says:
Then we are in substantial agreement.
From the context, the uncontrolled racial and sexist remarks (contrast: attitudes) were a symptom of his inability to control his anger and, particularly, his propensity to lash out. That is, someone that rages against those around him (and their ethnicity or whatever else — I have no doubt he would not have been happy with even a white man from DFS) in an abusive and explosive manner quite simply has anger issues.
The State cannot penalize him for merely having disfavored attitudes but neither can he claim that any expression of those attitudes is automatically protected and not, as here, symptoms of deep issues that render him unfit to be a parent.
July 1, 2010, 10:38 amRowerinVA says:
So, the use of force and the threat of violence never solved anything, and teaching the kids that it does is evil.
Therefore, we will use force and the threat of violence against the father if he disobeys this order.
Hmmm.
July 1, 2010, 10:39 amNik B. says:
Nonsense. What does attending church — or being religious for that matter — have to do with showing a “shred of decency”?
And would you be OK with the Court mandating a particular church? Or saying “sorry, no Church of Satan”? Or determining that Pastafarianism isn’t a real religion, and so attendance there doesn’t comply with the order?
July 1, 2010, 10:52 amChristy Clinton says:
I find several issues with this, including (as already cited in other responses) that sometimes force IS a method for solving disagreements. However, my biggest point of contention is the concept that disciplining of children is about teaching them conflict resolution. That is one area of teaching, but child-rearing involves much more than that. It’s about teaching them to be the best adults they can be, and to do that you first have to get their attention. For some — even most — children, in most situations, a word is sufficient. For many, however, at least sometimes, physical contact is required. Although it should remain a last resort, to rule that out completely is to be willing to accept failure in meeting your responsibility to the child. Your children deserve better.
July 1, 2010, 10:55 amtheobromophile says:
I can’t believe I’m defending this SOB, but here goes:
As a woman, even one who is very comfortable around men, I realise that men who are in positions of power over me (e.g. police officers) sometimes treat me like garbage for doing something that most women would do in the same situation. I cannot imagine having to try to navigate a system filled with people like that, who were standing between me and my child. So, while I don’t think that it’s every okay to be sexist, this is also a manifestation of the fact that social workers may create an environment that is not friendly to men.
If there is a male social worker somewhere in that system, this guy should be working with that person, and doing so because that man can probably put things into terms that the father can understand and respect. (You might get the same result with a woman social worker who has ten brothers.)
The courts only have a role in limited circumstances. The standards are not “This guy is a jerk” or what-have-you, but concrete physical abuse that is just unacceptable in any society. My dad got smacked with a belt buckle when he misbehaved, and that was in the early ’60s. So pulling hair? Okay, stupid parenting, and ineffective as a punishment, but not the stuff you take kids away for. If the guy is abusive, take the kids away because he’s abusive, and focus on the mandatory counseling as an abuse issue, not a PC “We all play nice with each other” issue. If he’s not abusive, then give him back his kids, stop meddling, and hope that extended family will provide a positive influence.
July 1, 2010, 11:13 amJames Earl Jones Soda says:
Are you going to incorporate that view into their civics lessons? “Now, Aiden, only the government is able to legitimately use force to get what it wants.”
July 1, 2010, 11:41 amGeorge says:
No, there is no hard evidence of abuse or neglect, as defined in California law. The case is based on a large number of ungrounded complaints against the dad, and his hostile attitude towards govt bureaucrats who were trying to take his kids away. If you really think that kids should be taken away for spanking, or for some simple name-calling, or for disrespecting govt officials, then I suggest you write your legislators and ask them to pass such a law. It is not the law or public policy to separate a dad from his kids based on the petty gripes in this case.
July 1, 2010, 12:03 pmUrso says:
Well there are two factors here. One is, if you deal with abused children all day every day, you start to assume all children are abused. The second is, no social worker ever got fired for erring on the side of protecting the kid, so to them it almost becomes the parents’ burden to show they aren’t abusing.
July 1, 2010, 12:34 pmOrenWithAnE says:
It is one particular way to show reform. The State might just as well be convinced by joining some other secular institution.
My point is that a father, already having abused his children, must make a genuine showing of reform in order to get them back AND that the threshold of that showing can be far more strict than the burden placed on parents that have not lost custody.
That’s precisely what has happened.
Instead of focusing on counseling, however, the man rages against the counselors thus proving conclusively that he still has serious anger management issues.
July 1, 2010, 1:55 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Did you read the complaint? There is a long list of abuse that goes far beyond any acceptable corporal punishment, especially for a young child. To be very specific, bruises to the face, photographically documented by the SMPD 1/22/2009.
One does not need to get into a philosophical debate about the limits of corporal punishment to conclude that the conduct described in this case is clearly outside those bounds.
July 1, 2010, 2:02 pmGeorge says:
This father was investigated 18 times over 5 years, and the worst finding is that he was rude to those who were trying to take his kids away. This order is not directed at any benefit to his kids; it only an attempt to force the father to change his attitude so that the govt social workers and others would not be offended. I suspect that a large percentage of the population of parents would be similarly indignant if they also underwent 5 years of harassment from govt agents. Do you want to take all those kids away? Send all those parents to re-education camps?
No, his kids were not taken away for him being abusive. The reasons given were (1) inappropriate discipline, (2) failure to obtain a recommended psychiatric intervention, and (3) providing a chaotic home environment. That’s all. None of the other accusations were substantiated.
July 1, 2010, 2:02 pmjohn mosby says:
theobromophile: “something that most women would do in the same situation” – do you mean crying?
I have often held that (women’s crying) = (men’s yelling). The same type of circumstances – frustration, feeling powerless – yield one reaction in one gender, the other in the opposite gender. Probably has something to do with both hormones and deep cultural memory (the cavewoman wails to get help – the caveman puts on an aggressive display to chase the predator away).
In the bad old patriarchal days, women were not taken seriously as leaders, executives, etc., if they cried. Now in the postmodern era, it seems that men are not taken seriously if they yell.
The major difference is that women in the bad old days tended not to get sent to anger-management or worse, carted off to jail, for crying…
JSM
July 1, 2010, 2:02 pmGuest14 says:
Corporal punishment is, I think, part of why I don’t have contact with my parents any more. It’s not that I’m resentful, but throughout my childhood, our relationship was so shaped by violence and threats of violence, that when the violence stopped, there wasn’t enough of another foundation for a relationship.
I realized we didn’t really connect on any level. I had behaved because if I didn’t I would get hurt, and now I was free to do what I want.
July 1, 2010, 2:22 pmOriginal Intent says:
This is the result of not marrying via ones inalienable right (Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877) but rather getting a marriage license and entering a contract with the state being the superior party of interest. Any children are viewed as the fruits of the contract which the state permitted and the state can and will tell you what to do. A problem that is so easy to solve, yet so many remain in the dark about.
July 1, 2010, 2:31 pmlosantiville says:
Then how is it that when the bulk of the population was trained using those methods, adult crime was much less frequent?
July 1, 2010, 2:32 pmInsomniac says:
I am sorry that you had that experience. My point of view is that there is a big difference between legitimate corporal punishment and physical abuse. This is a distinction frequently made in child abuse statutes, although the application of it may leave something to be desired. The problem too is where parents don’t make the distinction between a couple of swats on the backside and beating the living hell out of their kids.
July 1, 2010, 2:48 pmJeff Medcalf says:
Not all corporal punishment is abuse. Humans (like all animals) respond to unpleasant consequences by modifying their behavior if the pain is an obvious, immediate and direct result of their behavior. Thus, for teaching kids, particularly pre-verbal kids, to respond immediately to the “German Shepherd” commands (imperatives like “stop”, “be quiet”, “come here”), spanking can be very valuable if done immediately after the misbehavior and only then. The reason for this is simple: if my kid is running into the street after a ball, and I yell “stop” and he does not, he could be killed. The purpose of the imperatives is to prevent greater harm, and since young kids cannot use rational thinking, you have to teach them pre-rationally long enough for them to survive to rational thought, after which corporal punishment is hardly ever needed.
Apparently this father went well beyond that, and his behavior may have been abusive, but that is in no way the same thing as saying that any corporal punishment is abuse.
July 1, 2010, 2:50 pmBecky says:
While I agree that the social workers should have some leverage to get this man to act in a civil manner towards them, it is sad that the court allowed angry social workers to get to him by punishing his children. Yes, removing the children damages them and should only be used when they are in danger of immediate harm.
Should the court order anger management for him, probably, but that depends on the case. But there is no reason why the children had to be removed for him to get counseling. And the court knows this and that is why they focused on the racist/sexist angle of this. I’ve been involved in foster care and the social workers bend over backwards to return children to their parents. Ask any foster parent and they will tell you the pain of having to return children to the levels of cruelty and neglect that they will often surely be subjeted to.
The level of harm that has to occur before children are removed is a very high bar and the court knows this. The court can’t focus on that because the guy could point to probably no less than a million cases where children were NOT removed for far greater offenses.
If I were him, I would get a good lawyer. It is shameful that the court would allow the social workers to punish his children to get him to behave.
July 1, 2010, 2:51 pmAJK says:
Since the man in question here never got married, I’m not sure that you’re correct!
July 1, 2010, 2:57 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
1. Evidently the First Amendment doesn’t really mean anything.
2. Judges deserve to get kicked off the bench.
3. If this is a case of neglect, then it’s a case of neglect and the father’s speech has absolutely nothing to do with it.
July 1, 2010, 2:58 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmm.
Or you’re just ungrateful.
Either or.
July 1, 2010, 3:00 pmBecky says:
Jeff, apparently Kamal believes it more harmful to yell or spank a child than it is to have the State push through the door, rip the children from their beds, schools, friends, family and neighbors. You can’t fix stupid.
As I said in my post above, the court is focusing on the racist/sexist angle because clearly the abuse didn’t rise to level that they would normally apply to justify removing children from the home. I don’t know how it works when you want to sue the State, but I can’t help but wonder if the court was more worried about the guy having a rock solid case to sue for harm to his children than his mean comments. Maybe they just didn’t want to pay up to such a big jerk.
This ruling needs to be reversed. Social workers should not be allowed to punish children to get parents to behave.
July 1, 2010, 3:12 pmBob from Ohio says:
Stick and stones etc.
“This order is not directed at any benefit to his kids; it only an attempt to force the father to change his attitude so that the govt social workers and others would not be offended.”
Exactly right. Social workers at children’s services are generally on a power trip in any event. They expect slavish obedience. This man would cause them to totally freak out.
Nothing this man said to the social worker should matter at all. Their offended feelings does not hurt the children.
By the way, if the father did not keep kosher, why was a kosher diet ordered? And why would serving cake during visits be a bad thing?
July 1, 2010, 3:23 pmSynova says:
Only a truly unfit parent could face the threat of losing their children (and the inevitable psychological damage to them of having their security destroyed) without becoming angry. Yet that is what is expected in order to prove you are a good parent.
July 1, 2010, 3:36 pmCelebrim says:
‘Nonsense. What does attending church — or being religious for that matter — have to do with showing a “shred of decency”?’
Have you ever heard the phrase ‘Godless Heathen’?
In many communities, piety is consider the superlative mark of decency without which no man may be considered decent regardless of his other virtues. You wouldn’t have to go that far into the past to find the unquestioned assumption that before anyone could be made civil, they would first have to be made Christian. Therefore, it is not at all a stretch to suggest that a community might – if it could act without restriction – require religious counsoling in a case where it felt decency was lacking.
What is harder to get your head around is that notions like ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ are political constructs which are not universally accepted. That one should not be ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ has reached the level of social common sense. We all know it to be true and can’t imagine how someone would disagree with us. The problem with this is that there are times in the past when almost everyone felt the same way about piety, or when people could with full and sincere conviction argue the moral virtue of slavery and the evil of emancipation. While we may today deplore the notion that some races or genders are inherently inferior, we must also recognize that our present political opinions are in some fashion likely to appear just as barbaric to some future community as prior opinions seem to ours. Once we take the step of asserting that someone’s political views must be corrected and that someone must be reeducated away from viewpoints we disagree with, we are treading toward some very treacherous ground. For example, you can already have your licence to practice pyschiatry pulled if you suggest to someone that its possible for them to stop being homosexual. How big of a step is it from that to suggesting that we must use the force of law to correct someone’s ‘homophobic’ beliefs? And, if you would concur with that use of force, remember that society might not trend in the direction you expect and you might find yourself in the minority view, holding views that are considered heresy by the larger community and forced to recant those views or face consequences.
July 1, 2010, 3:39 pmTMLutas says:
Do you have children? When your kids defy your reasonable statement that no, they can’t stick a knife in an electrical socket, do you not give a smack on their hand so that they get the message? When they’re doing that, are they just having a “disagreement” with you? Is it less abusive to let them get shocked rather than smack them over the hand?
There certainly are times when physical discipline shades into abuse but to say that there’s no room for physical correction is itself abusive.
July 1, 2010, 3:45 pmSukieTawdry says:
Well, you can certainly understand why he had to use a donor egg and surrogate. What woman would have him.
July 1, 2010, 3:45 pmBill says:
I’d love to take a class from this history professor, who argued against the above comment:
July 1, 2010, 3:59 pmPeter says:
” As an adult, you can’t just hit someone who isn’t doing what you want”
No, you use your position over them to fire them putting them on the street destroying their families because they had the nerve to disagree with your opinion and incarcerate them (or the threat of said “hitting”) when they decides to seek justice using the only power they have over you.
Force (violence is violence, physical or mental) is how everything is resolved except in extremely small cases which almost never happen where there is zero power in-balance.
July 1, 2010, 4:25 pmLocomotive Breath says:
You mischaracterize the parent-child relationship as being equivalent to that of two adult peers.
July 1, 2010, 4:33 pmTcobb says:
OrenWithAnE:
Instead of focusing on counseling, however, the man rages against the counselors thus proving conclusively that he still has serious anger management issues.
And Juan, having been tortured by the Spanish Inquisition, rages against his torturers thus proving conclusively that he still has serious heretical belief issues.
And to Bob from Ohio who writes: Social workers at children’s services are generally on a power trip in any event. They expect slavish obedience. This man would cause them to totally freak out.
Nothing this man said to the social worker should matter at all. Their offended feelings does not hurt the children. Very true Sir.
July 1, 2010, 4:36 pmNobody Really says:
And sending him to counseling regarding his racist views will help how?
July 1, 2010, 4:49 pmGeorge says:
Homosexual man trying to be a parent. Artificial insemination. Twins to cut surrogacy costs. No marriage. Feminist man-hating social workers. Busybodies turning in anonymous complaints. Teachers who do not believe in discipline. Judges who want to micro-manage peoples’ lives. Appeals court that believes an man is guilty until proven innocent. Psychologists who treat politically incorrect speech as a mental disorder. Government authorities sending the disrespectful to a re-education camp. Alleged child injuries are matched by similar injuries while the kids are in foster care. Foreigners lecturing Americans on social norms. Blog commenters who want to punish the guy because of their own personal childhood demons. This case encapsulates everything that is wrong with modern civilization.
July 1, 2010, 5:09 pmAnym_Avey says:
Presumably, he might either change his views or learn to tightly control the expression of them, demonstrating that he had regained some of the lost self control that caused his original problems?
July 1, 2010, 5:12 pmBecky says:
I’m still curious if any of you lawyers out there think that the court ruled on the racist/sexist angle in order to prevent this man from having cause to sue the State over his children being improperly removed from his home.
This is not about whether or not this man qualifies in ones mind as a monster, but whether or not his actions rose to the level of removing the children from the home – as the rules and the regulations of the state require.
Children are rarely removed from the home unless there is severe neglect or abuse that borders on torture or life threatening. So the court would not want to rule that his abuse rose to that level because it quantify in law that this level of bad parenting is sufficient to require removal from the home.
Was the court just trying to limit the state’s liablity in this case?
July 1, 2010, 5:25 pmGM Roper says:
Having been a therapist working with hundreds of Child Protective Services over the last 20 or so years, I would question the goal of family reunification. This man sounds like a sadistic maniac who has absolutely no business being a father except maybe to a scorpion.
July 1, 2010, 7:29 pmTypical White Person says:
Just a thought – if the offending father making the racist/sexist remarks were black/hispanic, he would have been given a male black/hispanic social worker who speaks ebonics/spanish to help him through the process of getting his children back.
I’m just sayin’…
July 1, 2010, 8:45 pmmac says:
George, 1 July @ 5:09:
EXACTLY RIGHT! Extremely well written, sir, and absolutely correct!
July 1, 2010, 10:18 pmNik B. says:
It’s not a particular way to show anything, except the fact that one attended a religious service. No reform necessary to do that. And you didn’t answer the second part of the question: Would you be OK with the Court mandating a particular religious service? Or a list of religious services? Or, if, after the fact, it deemed a particular religion “not reforming enough”?
July 1, 2010, 11:04 pmNik B. says:
I find this quote extremely disturbing. Should they be able to compel people to change a t-shirt that says “F*** CPS” or “F*** SOCIAL WORKERS”? Should they be able to compel people to take off a bumper-sticker? Or compel them to not read certain books? Or hear certain music? All because a social worker happens to be in the vicinity? Where do you draw the line?
Why do you think that a government actor ought to have any leverage or authority to compel anyone to act in any particular manner towards them? The government isn’t a puppet-master and citizens aren’t marionettes, dancing at the tug of a string. And unless we’re talking about clearly non-protected speech or actions — and as far as I know, we aren’t — then the social workers shouldn’t be able to leverage anything to get people to be civil or courteous or anything else.
And while we’re on the subject, what is your take on Hackbart v. City of Pittsburgh?
July 1, 2010, 11:21 pmZoe Brain says:
I’d say there is a “clear and present danger” that a person with such anger issues is likely to lose his temper at a child, given the previous history of abuse.
Should the kids be returned to his care, and be assaulted by him, I’d even say that there was at least a prima facie case for a suit based on reckless endangerment by the returning authorities – that this was a reasonably foreseeable possible outcome.
The councelling is not so much an end in itself, but a means of measuring whether the father is likely to be a danger to the children or not. By this metric, he failed.
I leave it up to the professional psychs to decide whether this guy’s attitude qualifies as pathological or not. I certainly would not be confident having this guy around children – or adults, for that matter.
July 2, 2010, 1:10 amsubpatre says:
GM Roper writes: “Having been a therapist working with hundreds of Child Protective Services over the last 20 or so years . . . This man sounds like a sadistic maniac who has absolutely no business being a father except maybe to a scorpion.”
And
Zoe Brain says: “I’d say there is a “clear and present danger” that a person with such anger issues is likely to lose his temper at a child, given the previous history of abuse.”
Neither one of these comments is related to reality. No matter what your opinion of him, the father has been investigated repeatedly, perhaps ‘continually’ would be a better term, and found to be not abusive. Fact.
So claims of abusiveness are false; reflecting extremely poorly on ’20 years of experience’ and other puffery. Maybe these writers believe they would be abusive after saying those things, or perhaps feel that the father should be abusive to vindicate their feelings hurt by insults.
But a very long, extremely consistent, and thoroughly documented history show this man is loud and rude towards people who intrude into his life or personal business. Rude; not physical.
There is not one shred of evidence toward the father being enraged, angered, or controlled by any other overriding emotion. He is simply loud and rude.
Equally long, consistent and documented are the attempts by those who feel insulted by the father’s words to physically remove the children; an actual physical act.
July 2, 2010, 10:22 amOrenWithAnE says:
And since he did go so far beyond that, I am puzzled by the abstract debate that has no bearing on the instant case.
Yup, and attending anger management class is nothing more than sitting in a particular room for an allotted time. And transporting drugs over the border is just taking plants over an imaginary line.
No, nor do I believe that’s what happened here.
(1) See Cohen v. California.
(2) The line is this: when you have lost your children due to abuse the State has discretion on whether to return them. That discretion can extend to matters that would not have properly been within the purview of the State before you forfeited your parental rights. Alternatively, you can continue to exercise all your rights and the State can chose not to return the children to a parent that has already forfeited his parental rights by abusing his children.
That’s really the rub — the guy has already wronged. He does not have clean hands. This is not the same as simply being a racist and not smacking your preschool-age daughter in the face.
The leverage comes from the fact that an abuse father is applying to be reunified with his children.
Of course “fact” here means “thing I said totally at odds with the factual record submitted in the case that I didn’t read”.
July 2, 2010, 4:06 pmNik B. says:
Replying to OrenWithAnE:
You entirely tip-toed around my questions, typing a lot, but not really answering. That’s alright though, it seems like it’s a habit of yours, and they sure are hard to break.
Also, I object to your mixing-and-matching parts from many different posts, and answering them all together, without clearly identifying who originally typed what, or that you are replying to multiple users. It’s, at best, lazy, and at worst, dishonest.
July 2, 2010, 6:58 pmOrenWithAnE says:
How would you prefer I respond to the various points made by a number of people?
I assume that readers are starting at the top and reading their way down. Thus they know who wrote what.
July 3, 2010, 10:19 amLargo says:
I for one, Oren, am easily confused, even reading from the top. It would be a benefit to me, not that you owe me the effort.
I won’t impugn you, but I will point out that there is a quick way to include the names with the quotes. Select the passage and click the ‘Quote’ link under it. It should be blockquoted with the author’s name, at wherever you left your cursor in the edit-box.
It might depend on the browser though. YMMV.
July 3, 2010, 11:02 amOrenWithAnE says:
No offense taken at all.
I will include the author of the quoted passage from here on out.
July 3, 2010, 12:28 pmOrenWithAnE says:
By the way, the reason I usually quote single paragraphs or even sentences is that often times very important conclusions are buried in there and it helps to take the points one-by-one.
July 3, 2010, 12:41 pmLargo says:
Cool. Thanks Oren!
And it is prone to be tedious, and it’s often a judgment call regarding what works. I try playing with font sometimes, but it is very hit and miss.
And addressing points one-by-one is a Good Thing :)
July 4, 2010, 1:00 am