Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 1:36 PM
Subject: Langley case
October 13, 2008
RE: Foster Child S. of Dick and Amy Langley
I heard some rather disturbing news over the
weekend. The child S. was in the ER this Saturday after an unsupervised
visit. She was in respiratory distress and had welts across her right
buttock. This is after a previous allegation regarding an injury to the
child's inner thighs was ruled as "unfounded", despite the ER report that
the injury was consistent with pinching, and the child's own claim that her
mother had done it. If the first incident was in fact abuse, then "getting
away with it" does, in some case, lead to escalation. If that is the case,
then a child with the kind of behavior problems this child has is in serious
danger of further escalation.
Considering the following factors, we insist
that all unsupervised visitation be suspended immediately pending a full
- There are now two medical reports on
separate incidents that may have been related to abuse, with increasing
severity. The Rafael Gomez Act requires the medical records be given to the
- Three psych evals on the mother concluded
that she was "off the charts" in anti-social behavior. This type of
condition does not just disappear without years of treatment.
- The children have been in out of home care
far in excess of 15 months. The judge is required to order the department
to file TPR, or issue a show cause order explaining why it is not in the
child's best interest to do so. This cannot be done without a hearing.
After 4 years in out of home care, this is a gross violation of the child's
right to due process.
- The court has already made such an order,
and the department is not in compliance. The department's assertion in the
previous ISSP that a TPR petition had been filed was false.
- The department wishes to change
the permanency plan in a case which is very contentious. Proceeding with
agreed orders is not appropriate, or in our view, ethical.
- The last judge that looked at this case
chastised the department for removing the child from the Langley home, and
said that the neurologist's recommendation that the child be returned or
suffer harm carried "great weight". Moving in the opposite direction now
with a new judge, without a hearing, has the appearance of attempting to
slip something past judicial review.
The department's handling of this case has been
appalling. We believe the child is in imminent danger if unsupervised
visits are not suspended. As I said in my initial letter, the governor is
responsible for the well-being of these children. We now have an injured
child, in spite of repeated warnings.
Foster Care Justice Alliance