* Note: The following copyrighted article has been posted to the Fidonet 
conference VFALSAC for purposes of discussion. The rights of the copyright 
holder are not diminished.
Vol. 45, National Review, 04-12-1993, pp 44.
Copyright 1993 National Review Inc.
THE REAL ABUSE
What are the child-welfare agencies doing to stop child abuse? The
reverse.
MARY JACKSON is a 40-year-old black woman who has worked for 15 years
as a school crossing guard. She has been the primary caretaker of her
three grandchildren, aged five, eight, and ten, because her daughter -
-the children's mother -- has spent much of the time on drugs.
When one of the children was taken to the hospital for pneumonia, Mrs.
Jackson was charged by the child Welfare Administration with ``medical
neglect,'' and all three children were taken away. Most cases
involving allegations of neglect end there -- with the children in the
custody of the CWA. But Mrs. Jackson fought back. She was not guilty
of the charge, and she had evidence to prove it.
Indeed, after her first appearance in court, an extremely unusual
thing happened: the court-appointed psychologist recommended that her
grandchildren be returned to her. And he publicly disagreed with the
child-welfare bureaucracy. He wrote, ``In contrast to CWA reports that
Ms. Jackson has not provided medical attention to these children, she
pulled from her purse detailed copies of medical reports of
examinations and vaccinations.'' These records, dating back to the
time of each child's birth, documented every medical visit made and
every immunization shot received.
But the child-welfare bureaucracy doesn't give up that easily. They
offered Mrs. Jackson a deal: if she pleaded guilty to neglect they
would return her grandchildren to her in six months. Her court-
appointed lawyer advised her to do so, and she did. (This sort of
plea-bargaining is quite common in the child-welfare bureaucracy.)
When the six months were nearly up, the CWA went back on its word and
insisted that Mrs. Jackson go for another ``psychological evaluation.
'' This time she was examined by a black psychiatrist. Perhaps because
he was black, Mrs. Jackson felt that she could confide in him. She
failed to realize that he was a child-welfare bureaucrat above all
else. She described one of the figures in the Rorschach inkblot test
(these tests have no scientific validity) as ``a hole trying to trap
somebody . . . like they trapped me and I fell right into that hole.''
She also said, later in the interview,
``People lead you on, you do certain things and they use it against
you.'' Far from indicating some abnormal mental state, these were
perfectly accurate descriptions of what had happened to Mrs. Jackson.
But the psychiatrist inferred from her responses that she was
suffering from a ``paranoid personality disorder.'' He also stated in
his report that she was guilty of medical neglect, although he had
access to the psychologist's report that had already refuted this
charge.
The psychiatrist wrote, ``She tends to be more obvious or intense in
expressing feelings than most adults, and there's a capacity for very
maladaptive behavior when aroused. Mrs. Jackson is currently
depressed, in a rage, feels `all alone,' feels `everything has been
taken away' from her.'' This is a standard tactic among mental-health
bureaucrats: to construe a mother's distress as a ``symptom'' of a
``personality disorder,'' rather than as a natural response to the
abduction of her children.
The psychiatrist had two recommendations: first, that ``Mrs. Jackson
not be given custody of her grandchildren due to her disturbed
thinking and flawed judgment''; second, that she be provided with
therapy ``to help her cope and adjust to the loss of her
grandchildren.'' (Presumably, this was a slip of the pen. Usually the
bureaucrat is not candid enough to admit that what the client is
suffering from is the removal of her children.)
When I entered the case, pro bono, I wrote a three-page letter
debunking the psychiatrist's evaluation. I was prepared to testify as
an expert witness on Mrs. Jackson's behalf. After the CWA read my
letter, however, it decided to release the children -- not to Mrs.
Jackson, but to her daughter, who had just graduated from a drug-
rehabilitation program. This was the rare case in which everyone is
satisfied: the Jacksons, because their family was reunited; the CWA,
because it could resolve the problem without admitting its error.
Amina Mannan is another black woman who was falsely accused of medical
neglect. Two of her three children were placed in the care of her
former mother-in-law (Mrs. Mannan is divorced); the third child was
placed in foster care.
Mrs. Mannan was rebellious and disturbed the bureaucrats by her
``uncooperative'' behavior. The family-court judge ordered that she be
sent, against her will, for a ``psychological evaluation'' and kept in
a mental hospital for two weeks. Although this procedure is obviously
a violation of a person's constitutional rights, the state uses the
urgency of child-welfare cases as its excuse. The psychologist who
examined Mrs. Mannan wrote that although she presented herself in a
``relatively well-adjusted manner in highly structured situations,
where she has a general idea of what's expected from her,'' she would
do less well in an ``unstructured'' situation, where she would exert
``poor impulse control.'' She lacks ``adequate coping resources'' and
may respond to stress in ways that are ``highly variable and
emotionally charged.''
These are standard phrases used by virtually all mental-health
bureaucrats who do evaluations. In Mrs. Mannan's case, the assertion
was particularly ludicrous. This was not a structured situation: Mrs.
Mannan had been abducted and placed in a mental hospital where she was
told she must remain for two weeks! As I wrote in my report, ``How
could anyone have a good idea of `what was expected of her' by mad
psychologists who evidently regard the violation of one's
constitutional rights and the unlimited exercise of power by mental-
health professionals as part of the normal course of events? The fact
that she was able to remain restrained in such a situation indicates
to me that she had not `inadequate,''' as the examining psychologist
claims, ``but highly developed `coping skills.'''
The psychologist did not make a recommendation. However, his nebulous
but ominous warnings would lead anyone who trusted his expertise to be
reluctant to return Mrs. Mannan's children to her. The psychiatrist he
worked with did not make a recommendation concerning the children, but
she did recommend that ``the patient be in individual therapy because
of the emotional distress she's experiencing due to her housing
conditions and a chronically sick child.'' The letter concluded, ``An
appointment has been made for Ms. Mannan to attend the Rockaway Mental
Health Clinic. We will give the patient the date and the time of her
appointment.''
Despite a four-year battle in family court, and numerous letters
written by myself, by Dr. Monty Weinstein, director of the Family
Therapy Institute of New York City, and by Beryl Murray, co-director
of the Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation (Mrs. Mannan's 13-year-old
daughter has sickle-cell anemia), Mrs. Mannan has still not recovered
custody of her children. The daughter in foster care (the one with
[cont]
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------