CPS Abuse Story and 4.6 Million Fed. Lawsuit

This is an article about CPS corruption and refusal to honor families, another case in Washington state. I hope people will note some of the comments in the end, because for those parents who will not give up hope, you CAN sue the state in federal court and I pray more lawyers think about taking these cases on. One woman was awarded over 4.6 million dollars in damages for what the state and CPS did to her family. Read On:

Investigators: Grandparents passed over in favor of foster care

03:08 PM PST on Thursday, December 11, 2008

By SUSANNAH FRAME / KING 5 News

Video: Grandparents passed over in favor of foster care
Larger screen E-mail this clip

ENUMCLAW, Wash. - From day one Doug and AnneMarie Stuth of Enumclaw adored the new baby in their home.

"It was a very exciting time. She was the center of our world," AnneMarie Stuth said.

But the Stuths aren't the baby girl’s parents; they're her grandparents. Their troubled teenage daughter had her at 16. Then she relied on her parents to help raise the baby.

"I was the first one to hold my granddaughter and I was the first one to kiss her,” Doug Stuth said. “So yeah, we have a tight bond."
State laws on placing children with relatives

RCW 13.34.130

WAC 388-25-0445
Related Content

Behind the scenes: Why we did this story

Office of the Family and Children's Ombudsman

How do WA laws compare to other states?

DSHS information on placing children with relatives

In depth: What the Legislature has done to promote placing children with relatives

When the baby was 9 months old, things unraveled. The teen mom moved out of her parents' home along with the baby. While living away from the Stuths, the baby lost weight. A doctor's appointment led to a call to Child Protective Services. The doctor reported the teenage mother let her child get dangerously thin.

“It’s like your whole world comes crashing down,” AnneMarie Stuth said.

Enumclaw police put the child in protective custody with the Stuths right away.

The grandparents raised the child for months and received glowing reports. One officer of the court wrote: "She's fortunate to have her grandparents as a safety net."

"Our granddaughter always came first,” Doug Stuth said. “She’s a little baby. She needs someone to protect her and take care of her and that’s what we did.”

Reuniting the baby with her mother was the goal. Caseworkers placed the two in transitional housing for young moms. That didn't work. The teenager got kicked out of the programs and lost her daughter again.

KING

Later this month a judge is expected to rule on the fate of Doug and AnneMarie Stuth's grandchild, pictured here. She is now 3 years old.

This time instead of going back to grandma and grandpa, social workers put the baby in foster care. There was a court order saying the Stuths weren't a placement option. State workers and the child's court advocate had submitted negative reports about them to a judge, saying living with the grandparents wouldn't be good for the baby.

The Stuths were devastated. The child’s daycare providers gave them heartbreaking reports.

“(They tell me) that she cries for me," Doug Stuth said. “You have no idea (how hard it is)."

Why didn't the baby go back to the grandparents? Most people would think there must be something very wrong with them, such as reports of abuse or neglect. Perhaps they have criminal records, drug problems, or a history of unemployment? None of those things are true.

So we dug a little deeper. The King 5 Investigators looked at hundreds of documents written by people making decisions on the case.

A court-appointed advocate for the baby wrote the Stuths were selfish, hyper-critical, and were derailing their daughter's parenting efforts. One example cited over and over in legal papers: They gave the child a pacifier, or binky, which was against the young mom's wishes.

"You would not believe how many times that darn binky was brought up in court and in paperwork over the stupid binky!" AnneMarie Stuth said.

A social worker also wrote the grandparents refused to financially support their daughter. But we have copies of dozens of cancelled checks which show the Stuths were giving their daughter money.

They were also accused of being unwilling to drive the child for visits with the mom. But mileage reimbursement records show the state was paying the grandparents for driving hundreds of miles a month so the child could see her mother.

"I've never seen people so hell bent on destroying one family,” AnneMarie said.

Washington law is clear: If a child can't be with parents, relatives must be considered before foster care.

KING

Doug and AnneMarie Stuth were devastated when state workers put their grandchild in foster care. They wanted to care for their granddaughter themselves.

"The department (DSHS) is making greater efforts, absolutely," State Family and Children Ombudsman Mary Meinig said.

Meinig’s office investigates dozens of child custody complaints from relatives every year. She says DSHS is doing better at placing kids with relatives, but that state workers are not always following the law.

"When you have children who are not at risk and they are bonded to their relative, you want them there,” Meinig said. “You don't want them re-traumatized by removing from relatives."

The Stuths think they were flagged as trouble-makers because they complained, a lot, about what was happening. They even called their senator, Pam Roach, who rattled cages in Olympia over the case.

"I'm trying to right something that I think is wrong," Sen. Roach said. “I think it’s important that the state realize that it’s doing something very damaging to this little girl.”

Roach lobbied to get the Stuths visits with their granddaughter. They’d been told by the child’s court advocate there was a court order forbidding them to see her. But we’ve found there was no such court order. They should have been allowed to see her all along.

"It's heartbreaking why any state would want to step between a family tie like that and try to sever that bond," AnneMarie said.

A judge ordered there should be visits and last month KING 5 was there for one of them. The child, now 3 years old, lit up upon seeing her grandparents in the parking lot where the supervised visit was to take place.

"To see the excitement in her eyes and know how we feel inside,” AnneMarie said, “there's no way to put that into words."

DSHS officials couldn’t answer specific questions about the Stuths' situation because it’s part of an ongoing case. But speaking in general terms, Cheryl Stephani, who heads up all child welfare programs at DSHS, told us: “The first requirement is that any placement be in the best interest of the child.”

Stephani also says custody cases are never as simple as they appear.

"It's easy to sit back and say, oh, I know exactly how that should have gone,” Stephani said. “But when you're in the midst of it, there really are a lot of folks who have the best interests of the child at heart but there are a lot of different viewpoints."

One high ranking DSHS official thinks the case hasn’t been handled correctly. We've obtained an internal state e-mail where the administrator writes: “If we don't (place the child) with a relative there will be a lot of explaining to do."

Later this month a judge is expected to rule on the fate of the little girl. The young mother is fighting to get her back, and the grandparents support that goal. State social workers have pushed to have her adopted by the foster mother, saying the little girl is very bonded to her now.

During this turbulent year and a half, the Stuths have left their granddaughter's room untouched in their Enumclaw home. Her clothes, toys and blankets sit empty in a pretty pink room. It’s hard to go in, so they usually have the door closed.

"You look at different things and you remember, where you got it, where you were, how much she loved it," said AnneMarie. "It's a piece of your heart and life gone."

More:

To read why we did this story, read Susannah Frame's blog.

*
* Print this story
* Add RSS Feeds
* Email this story

Advertisement
More Washington News

Buses hang over I-5 after collision

Weather gets even worse this weekend

Spokane buried under snow

500 workers at Seattle Times to take week unpaid

Teen injured in Kent sledding accident

Snow storm cuts into W. Wash blood supply
More
Popular Stories

* Most Recommended
* Most Commented

More snow expected across the Northwest

Commuters face freezing cold, icy roads

Snow falls across large areas of Northwest

Buses hang over I-5 after collision

Weather gets even worse this weekend

Residents fired up over gun ban plan

Investigators: Grandparents passed over in favor of foster care

Snow falls across large areas of Northwest

Deep cuts in Gregoire's 'no-new-taxes' budget

Teen injured in Kent sledding accident





Create A Screen Name

Screen names can only consist of letters and numbers.
Your screen name will appear to everyone.

Check to see if this screenname exists Cancel Screen Name Form
Share Your Thoughts

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register Now!

You are logged in as screenname | Log Out

You are logged in, but do not have a "screen" name. Update Your Profile

Showing:

Most Recent Comments: 234
such corruption 1 hour ago wrote:

thestuthcrusade@live.com

How to reach these Grandparents

Recommend this Comment 1
Report Abuse

CCTillett 3 hours ago wrote:

This is out of S. Ca. The story depicts what the Stuths may be able to accomplish in a federal court.

by Linda M.
Member since:
December 1, 2006 Family Rights Today: Mother Awarded 4.9 Million Dollars In Lawsuit Against CPS
April 02, 2007 02:35 AM EDT (Updated: April 02, 2007 03:35 AM EDT)
views: 1644 | rating: 10/10 (22 votes) | comments: 43
A Southern California mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, filed a lawsuit against Child Protective Services (CPS). She claimed caseworkers had unjustly taken her children in February 2000. The children were ages 6 and 9 at the time. The accusation against her was that she was telling the children that their father was trying to take them away from her.



Because of this, the children were placed in the Orangewood Children's Home. The children were kept there for a month, then transferred to a foster home for two months. Eventually they were placed in their father's custody, and the mother had to endure the humiliation of supervised visits.




Another family destroyed!




But wait! The mother recovered from the injustice done to her enough to file a federal lawsuit based on violations of Constitutional law. With the help of an attorney, Shawn A. McMillan, they went after the Orange County (California) Department of Social Services and three caseworkers.




In the lawsuit the mother alleged the caseworkers intentionally misled the court, fabricated evidence against her, and hid exculpatory evidence. She also alleged that caseworkers withheld information from the judge regarding the emotional distress of the children, who wanted to be with their mother. Also alleged was that a supervisor in the agency refused Kinship Care rights to relatives without good cause, forcing the children to stay longer in foster care.




On March 23, 2007, after a seven-week civil trial, the jury found the Department of Social Services and caseworkers Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak liable for violating the mother's parental rights and violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.




Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick was awarded 4.9 million dollars. The jury also awarded her an additional $5,900 in punitive damages. The large settlement was intended to 'send a message' to Child Protective Services bureaucrats.




In a press release after the settlement the attorney gave this list of illegal practices of the caseworkers involved:




... detention of children without a finding of imminent danger or serious physical injury;

... interviewing children without a parent present;

... continuing detention after learning there was no basis to do so;

... using trickery and fabricated evidence;

... failing to adequately train employees regarding the Constitutional rights of parents.


The attorney added:




"My client Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, is satisfied by the Jury's recognition of the harm that the defendants caused her. But, obviously, no amount of money can ever undo the damage inflicted upon Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick or her children. We expect the Jury's 4.9 million dollar verdict will cause the County of Orange and its Department of Social Services to implement procedures to prevent future abuses by County social workers and protect other families."

...




My opinion: I consider this to be outrageously good news. More people should be filing charges against CPS, but they don't, mainly because they have a hard time finding attorneys willing to represent them. The attorneys know that CPS maims families by splitting them up using trumped up, inaccurate, or fictitious accusations. But it seems most attorneys don't have the guts to fight CPS. Perhaps it isn't a politically correct move to sue this overly powerful agency, yet this is what needs to be done if we're ever going to be able to stop caseworkers from unfairly decimating families.

Recommend this Comment 2
Report Abuse

GRAND MOM 4 hours ago wrote:

It would be a travesty to have this child be adopted by the foster parents. The child belongs with her family. A mistake by DSHS does not mean a family should be torn apart. This poor child, my heart aches for her. Transition her back into the folds of her family. At the same time, the foster family should be commended for taking her in.

Recommend this Comment 3
Report Abuse

JanSmith 4 hours ago wrote:

washingtonstateextendedfamilies@live.com
sunflowerinthemist2006@yahoo.com
familypreservation@live.com

Recommend this Comment 2
Report Abuse

family comes first 5 hours ago wrote:

After recieving it,they sat on it and waited for it to expire in September.Strangly,the week it expired,the second termination was scheduled.

Recommend this Comment 1
Report Abuse

JanSmith 5 hours ago wrote:

Dear Stuths,
I would call you but I don't have your number. I hope this finds its way to you before Monday.
You fall under "De Facto Parenting" and you meet the four criteria necessary to be classified that. There are two cases that stand out regarding De Facto. One was with a lesbian couple who broke up and the estranged woman wanted visitation with the child. Because she was a primary caregiver, she was awarded De Facto. Another case that is important, a father brought a child into a living together relationship but wasn't responsible for most of the care; his girlfriend was. She fought for custody and won as a De Facto parent. If a lesbian and a girlfriend can win as De Facto, then certainly a blood relative meeting the four criteria should be winning also.
A recent published case regarding DSHS may be critical as well for two reasons. One, CPS withheld important information, and the other is the resistance to the accused witness testimony that exist in UFC. Give this to the attorney before Monday and request action.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=595491MAJ
"Where an agency has improperly
excluded evidence from the record, the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes
the court to remand for further proceedings before the court makes a final
decision."
Lastly, read my discussion on continance in child relationships and think about how that can be used as an argument in your case and your daughter's case.
I hope this info helps
Jan

Recommend this Comment 2
Report Abuse

family comes first 5 hours ago wrote:

JanSmith;
Emails to the account we have were rejected.I have an approved ICPC recieved by Maya Brown on March 20,2008.

Recommend this Comment 2
Report Abuse

JanSmith 5 hours ago wrote:

If there are extended family that can hold up under federal audit scrutiny, please email them to me. I am focusing on extended family right now due to being the path of least resistance because they are sooooo busted.
But FCF, if you have info that is important, write me a letter.

Recommend this Comment 5
Report Abuse

family comes first 6 hours ago wrote:

Washington State ICPC office also needs to be looked at to see if they or DSHS withheld an approved ICPC for North Dakota.There are many other names that need to brought out.

Recommend this Comment 5
Report Abuse

christy2008 16 hours ago wrote:

Maybe cps should get money for returning the children, just like they do for stealing them.