Last, but certainly not least, one in which the American Civil
Liberties Union of Virginia provided Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Boronica, the affected child.  In the interest of brevity, I'll
comment this case.
    Boronica was removed from her parents' residence at birth due to
    incidents of domestic violence that posed a threat to the child.
    [Father was the threat, left home 1.5 year after removal of
    child].  . . . he and the mother are still married and have not
    indicated an intention to divorce. . .
    The mother has recieved extensive instruction in parenting skills
    and general life management from DSS. . .  [also with respect to
    the son]. . .  Nevertheless, the son is developmentally delayed
    and, according to the expert testimony, this deficiency is due to
    the mother's failure to interact with the son and stimulate
    learning activities that are necessary for proper development.
    In addition, the evidence established that the mother is mildly
    mentally retarded and that her mental handicap prevents her from
    being able to integrate the instruction and education provided by
    DSS into her daily parenting.  Contrary to Boronica Wright's
    contention, from our review of the record, the fact of the
    mother's mental retardation was not the sole basis for terminating
    her parental rights.  The record and findings of the trial judge
    show that the mother's parental rights were terminated by
    violence, [by a father that has left], neglect, lack of parenting
    and budgeting skills, as well as poor management of her mental
    illness.
    Wright v Alexandria Div. of Social Servs., No. 0789-92-4, July
    27, 1993, 16 Va App 821
As you can see, the Alexandria Department has been busy as well.
The point is, if I interpret former holdings correctly, the Court of
Appeals would not have upheld termination based upon subjectively poor
parenting, housekeeping and/or budgeting skills, any more than it
would have upheld evidence of a mental illness as prima facie evidence
that abuse or neglect had actually occurred.  Nor would it likely have
upheld a failure to fully cooperate with DSS as indicative of parental
unfitness.
The question that remains to be fully addressed is one of what would
account for this apparent turnabout.  I suppose one may argue that as
more conservative justices are replaced with more liberally educated
counterparts, such shifting of values is an inevitability.  Maybe so,
but the one thing that has always puzzled me is why the Department is
targeting its efforts toward the Court of Appeals in each state.
Is it because the Court of Appeals that has historically served as the
last bastion of parental rights, often overturning lower court actions
with regard to the termination of parental rights?  Just how much
weight, if any, does this "invisible finger" of the US government have
on the scales of justice?
I respectfully submit that it is time that we find out.  To this end,
I am filing a Freedom of Information Act request to determine just how
the C.I.P. funds are being spent, and what the findings of these
preliminary studies toward "court improvement" might actually be.  It
would be of some potential benefit if you were to find some time to
parallel my efforts here in your home state of Arkansas, such that we
can compare our independent findings.  Also, if you are aware of any
efforts along this course, please direct my attention toward them.
This program, largely unknown to the general public, may indeed have a
significant impact on the courts, else it may amount to little more
than more government funds wasted on yet another useless program.  If
the former, I think this would merit further consideration in terms of
a constitutional challenge.
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------