Judge for a Day: Episode One

[Scooter]

Abusive and drunks according to what testimony? That which was recanted by the girl when she learned it wouldn't get her placed permanently in her bf's house?

[Gob]

A shame it has to go to court. Surely you have care and protection or social services which could intervene and provide the necessary support without all this court fandango?

[Scooter]

If the parents aren't cooperative, child protective services can't act. other than on an emergency basis, without a court order. Which is as it should be; no one should be acting in the place of parents without the say so of a judge.

[Gob]

Do you (they) have special judges and courts, versed in kids needs, for these matters?

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/

[Scooter]

Yes.

[Gob]

That's not so bad then, if situations cannot be resolved by mediation, then sometimes a court order is needed.

I work closely with these folk, (in fact I'm doing a visit with them today,) I'm also a "mandatory reporter."

[Joe Guy]

It takes an order from a juvenile court judge to legally remove a child from parents, although a child at risk can be placed in temporary shelter while the court order is pending.

[dales]

BTDT

My older daughter was declared a ward of the court.

She got into all kinds of trouble, truancy, drug use, and she kicked the hell out of her 5 school tormentors. She was quite proficient in the martial arts. The end came when she attacked my ex-wife. She had a lot of pent up rage against her mom and to a lesser degree myself. Those days were pure unadulterated HELL!

She did several months at a juvenile facility in Santa Clara county.

That was 15 years ago.

She is now 30 years old, married, a happy haus frau with a six year old boy and another child on the way.

Prayer Works!

[Sue U]

Prayer Works!

Yours or hers?

[BoSoxGal]

We don't have specialized judges; our District Judge does everything, juvenile, youth in need of care (this), criminal, civil, family.

They get training, but bring prejudices to bear just the same.

Seems like poor dirty children are very easily established as youth in need of care, but it's a higher standard (though not by law) if the parents are middle class.

[Gob]

Wow. That's not good. How old are these judges?

[alice]

The practical effect of the judge's ruling is that the girl will continue to live with her BF's family. What is the environment there like? Is it supportive? Is it at least better than with her parents or wth state custody? Pregnant at 14 is not a great idea, but it's certainly not unheard of, and not too far from the norm in many communities. Let's face it, this girl is not going to be a candidate for a scholarship to Wellesley; so, given her prospects, can she be equipped with the education and familial support she'll need to be a comptetent mother, in the event the pregnancy goes to term?

I'm not sure the judge was wrong, because I'm not sure the alternatives for this girl are significantly better than where she is now.

I agree with your sentiments, except this part: "Let's face it, this girl is not going to be a candidate for a scholarship to Wellesley;..."
I don't know the full hypothetical facts of this hypothetical situation of course, and I don't know Wellesley. I'm presuming it's a reasonably prestigious school? Unless they have certain criteria about backgrounds/teen pregnancies/parents that would preclude this girl, or require a really high income level to enable enrolment, I don't understand why her current life situation would infer she can't make it into a prestigious establishment. My first thought in reading this - which is probably not what you meant - was that you were making an inference regarding her intelligence level, and I would argue that none of of situation would necessarily mean she isn't intelligent enough to go on to great things in her life, if she grows up a bit and puts herself in the right direction. Sometimes people from less than perfect backgrounds are very highly motivated within themselves to rise above their start in life. (I'm not being argumentative, just curious what the comment meant)

And after that, go thru the tens of millions of homes where teenagers have been having sex with their bf/gf, doing drugs, getting pregnant, skipping school, etc. and remove them all from their parents.

Maybe you can get them placed in homes in the moon colony that Newt is going to build.

I'd want to know a lot more about the parents of the boy she is living with and whether the girl will be getting prenatal care before I'd decide on whether or not to place her in foster care. What did the Social Worker recommend at the hearing?

The next potential victim of neglect or abuse will be the child of the 14 yr old.

My understanding, which may be wrong, was that the foster care system is overloaded and has it's own issues - it's a less than perfect solution.
Recent studies - and I'm being general because there are 'recent studies' that go all over the place when it comes to child protection issues, but these 'recent studies' suit what I'm saying - suggest that if the issues aren't involving dangerous abuse and imminent threats etc, it is often better to leave a child in an environment that is less than perfect, and try to work with the child and environment to educate and improve the situation, than it is to remove the child. Removal can cause even more serious trauma and long term more serious issues, and the child isn't always in a 'better' environment when they're removed.
In this case, if the child is being treated reasonably well at the boyfriends place, then the better 'treatment' would be to work with/mediate/counsel and educate the child, the boyfriend, the child's parents and the boyfriends parents, to try to resolve relationship issues and teach parenting skills (the current parents, and also the girl and boyfriend, for the expected child), and minimise any psychological issues, and work toward the best possible future outcome in this situation.

I couldn't speak for elsewhere, but here if such a child existed and was removed, she would be placed in a group home for (pregnant) teen moms and be provided extensive support services to address mental health & substance abuse issues, and also parenting classes, continued education, etc.

That may be an option, depending on the overall domestic situation at the boyfriend's place. If overall she was in a secure and safe environment, removal, even to a group home, could expose her to further issues.

Do you (they) have special judges and courts, versed in kids needs, for these matters?

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/

Our family court system is good, but there are still some questionable decisions made, and the bias of judges - specialised or not - is able, and has, come through in some of the decisions made.
Even on matters of child protection, the decisions aren't all what would be the most ideal. The majority are good decisions, but there are always some that probably display more about the judge's bias, or other incorrect factors, than what is in the best interests of the children.
Our system is overdue for an overhaul - on general family law matters it' can be a long and expensive process. And the question of what is the best interests of the children came under review a few years ago, and decreed what direction judges had to take in their decision making. And it is now under review again because the effects of the previous review are now being seen, and it is now being realised that the previous direction wasn't as good as it idealistically and theoretically appeared that it would be.

That's not so bad then, if situations cannot be resolved by mediation, then sometimes a court order is needed.

I work closely with these folk, (in fact I'm doing a visit with them today,) I'm also a "mandatory reporter."

I don't know what they're like in the ACT, but in Victoria, SA and NT they're extremely overworked, understaffed to a massively huge degree, and the system doesn't work as efficiently as what that website would imply. They have huge caseloads and a lot of cases classified as non-urgent have to sit on 'backburners' for long lengths of time, simply because there aren't the resources to deal with them.
They also operate under the premise of non-removal and education as much as possible, unless specific reasons - immediate danger etc of course - are seen. In the instance given here, I believe it would be extremely doubtful that removal would have occurred.
And the states I mentioned also have huge shortages of foster carers, and overcrowding or lack of other facilities to accommodate children once removed, which is partly why I'm reasonably certain that there would have been a non-removal in an instance such as this.

It takes an order from a juvenile court judge to legally remove a child from parents, although a child at risk can be placed in temporary shelter while the court order is pending.

We have a similar system.

[Rick]

Wellesley is a bastion of over achievers...

[dales]

Prayer Works!

Yours or hers?

Both.