THE WATLEY DECISION, SC 18951/18952

Imagine how you would feel if the State came into your house and punished you by taking away your children not based upon anything that you had done, but simply based upon what you might do.  Sound like science fiction, perhaps on the level of the movie "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise?  No, this was a reality for Connecticut couple, Joseph Watley and his partner, Karin Hasemann. 

This is their story.  Prior to meeting Joseph Watley, Karin had a daughter, Kristina, who was taken from her at birth in 2002 by DCF.  Then the couple had two children, Joseph born in 2005, and Daniel born in 2006.  Each of these children was taken from the parents by DCF based upon the concept that even though the parents hadn't done anything wrong to the children, they might do something wrong with the children--in other words based upon the doctrine of "predictive neglect." 

Using the holding of the Appellate Court as a standard, the Supreme Court defined the doctrine of predictive neglect as follows:  "The petitioner [DCF] in a neglect proceeding pursuant to CGS Sec. 46b-120 need not wait until a child is actually harmed before intervening to protect that child." 

And further, "This statute clearly contemplates a situation where harm could occur but has not actually occurred.  Our statutes clearly and explicitly recognize the state's authority to act before harm occurs to protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected and not just children whose welfare has been affected." 

And finally, the Supreme Court continues, "The doctrine of predictive neglect is grounded in the state's responsibility to avoid harm to the well-being of a child, not to repair it after a tragedy has occurred.  Thus a finding of neglect is not necessarily predicated on actual harm, but can exist when there is a potential risk of neglect." 

What is notable about this case is that from 2005 up until the present while this case has gone through the legal system, at each point the trial court has ruled to take the children from the parents, while the higher courts--the Appellate Court and now the Supreme Court--have consistently decided in favor of the parents.  So the higher courts, in this case, have continually had to correct the lower courts for improper rulings.  This leaves me with the impression that the trial court wants to do what it wants to do and simply disregards the law.

It also means that for the last 7 years this case has been cycling endlessly up and down the legal system leaving both the parents and their children in limbo, and denying them their right to a meaningful parent/child relationship.  At this point, the children have spent a significant part of their lives without their parents--Kristina is ten years old, Joseph is seven, and Daniel is six. 

This leaves most of us wondering whether creating this situation is intentional on the part of DCF, the judges, and the attorneys, that perhaps they are hoping the legal proceedings will continue up until the point that the children become independent or until the parents become so discouraged that they give up.  

Indeed, this is a classic case of "Justice delayed is justice denied."  

Furthermore, since 2008 Joseph and Karin have been denied the opportunity to see their children, ostensibly because their visits have been disruptive.  Naturally, they are disruptive since I can imagine these kids are wondering why they are not allowed to live with their own parents the way their friends do.  It is very likely that, if not now, definitely later, these children will require therapy in order to come to terms with the loss of their fundamental right to grow up with their own parents. 

What is interesting here is that DCF caused the problem, and then they go and blame the parents and punish the parents for it! 

So, why, I am sure you are asking, did DCF conclude that the parents could be a danger to their children?  Apparently, when Kristina was born Karin exhibited "strange behavior", and then when Joseph was born Karin then again exhibited "bizarre behavior".  There was no reported funny behavior with Daniel, perhaps because DCF grabbed him so quickly. 

Of course, all of this sounds like a lot of psychiatric name calling.  In other words, what does that mean strange and bizarre--in what way?  Raise your hands, ladies.  What with all the pain, and the drugs, how many of you exhibited either strange or bizarre behavior either before or after your babies were born?  I'll bet a whole lot of you.

Otherwise, what strikes me is that what Karin had sounds a lot like post partum psychosis.  I don't think there is any law in this country that justifies taking a child away from its mother on the basis of either post partum depression or psychosis. 

I once had a distant friend who had post partum depression and after her baby was born she tried to slit her throat (her own throat not the baby's!) with an electric carving knife.  She was hospitalized and had several ECT Treatments (not that I am advocating ECT by any means) and eventually recovered.  The last I saw of her she was sitting on a couch surrounded by her family and holding the baby in her arms. Nobody talked about taking the child away from her! 

The ruling also says that the mother has "a significant and long-standing mental health condition" and that "the father appeared to lack insight as to the mother's mental problems."  So what does that mean "mental health condition"?  As far as I know, particularly in the light of the constantly expanding DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) pretty much everyone has a mental health condition.  Seriously, why are the courts in this case so shy?  Why can't we get the name of this so-called mental health condition that Karin purportedly has.  Other courts in other cases aren't so shy. 

To be honest, I myself spoke at length with Karin Hasemann and she seemed just fine to me.  Maybe that is why Joseph Watley couldn't see it either.  But I have no patience with using ominous mental health labeling in order to damn other people.  My questions are: Can Karin take care of herself?  Can she get dressed, do her personal toiletry?  Can she hold a job?  Does she have housing? Does she have friends (well, apparently she has one in Joe) or family available to be supportive?  Can she drive a car?  Has she ever put another child not her own at risk?  Does she have any criminal record? If there are legitimate concerns about Karin's parenting, are there state agencies which could provide Karin with support and training in her home?  The latter would seem to me in accordance with the spirit of federal ADA law which the Supreme Court makes such short shrift of in its ruling. 

I mean, I know of retarded parents who are allowed to retain custody of their children, deaf parents of hearing children who retain custody of their children, parapalegics who retain custody of their children, alcoholics and drug abusers who retain custody of their children, even all sorts of parents with "mental health conditions" retain custody of their children--why pick on Joe and Karin? 

To be honest, if there is anything that seems to bother DCF more than anything else when it comes to these two, it is primarily their lack of compliance.  My guess is that if Karin and Joe had been a little more deferential, done what they were told, and played the game, they might, and I only say might, have had a better chance. Of course, I don't believe there is anything in DCF's mandate that states the agency has the authority to deprive citizens of their right to parent if they aren't obedient! 

The Supreme Court ruling states Joseph Watley was cited for not filling out required paperwork, failing to complete parenting education classes, and not setting up a parenting plan, along with not doing what he was told and not staying away from Mother.  What can I say, my X did the same things and he still ended up with joint custody. 

I would also like to point out a sentence tucked away between the condemnatory lines of this ruling which states about Joe Watley, "The court ackowledged...that during supervised visitations with Joseph before Daniel's birth, the father had been able to properly care for the child with some assistance and had demonstrated love and affection." Oh, really, love and affection.  And DCF thought that love and affection could be thrown away so easily and disregarded.  Please excuse me, if I am a little skeptical.

The Media has portrayed this Supreme Court ruling as a victory for parents with mental illness.  I do not see it that way.  First of all, I have to see it proved that either of these parents has a mental illness.  Apparently, the parents mental health was not a concern until DCF came upon the scene. 

Second, all the Supreme Court did was state that the lower courts had been incorrect in using the wrong standard of proof when they determined that the children were neglected under the doctrine of predictive neglect.  Apparently, the trial courts should not have used "fair preponderance of the evidence" as their standard; they were supposed to use the standard of "more likely than not." 

In its ruling the Supreme Court expressed absolutely no sensitivity towards the parents, not even a shred of regret, in regard to what it meant for Joe and Karin to have their children taken away from them in a series of arbitrary and captricious proceedings.  The Supreme Court completely failed to acknowledge the pain and hurt and public humiliation Joe and Karin  endured as a consequence of that fact that they were denied their constitutional right to parent. 

So I wouldn't be too happy about this ruling.  My guess is that this case will again return to trial court, the same evidence will be presented, and the trial court will state that the old evidence meets the new standard.  That determination will probably then go to the Appellate Court and maybe on up as high as Supreme Court again.  A few more years will go by, and Joseph Watley and Karin Hasemann will still be denied their right to parent to the detriment of their children and the extended family as a whole.  Again, for shame that our family courts operate tyranically and outside the bounds of the law and human decency.     

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/09/report-on-appellate-court-hearing-on.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/open-letter-regarding-watley-case-from.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html