DEBBIE'S CALL

From:   Dave Mielke <dave@mielke.cc>
Save Address - Block Sender
To:             "Recipients not shown.": ;
Save Address Subject:             Debbie's call.
Date:    Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:13:55 -0500 (EST)

Hi:

The social worker for our 5- and 4-year-old daughters phoned us this afternoon. She wanted to confirm with us that she'd contacted all of the foster parents to inform them of our desire to have our children kept out of any halloween-related activities, and to inform us that all of them had no problems with, and agreed to comply with, our request. I thanked her.

She also wanted to request permission for our daughters to go on a trip.  It turns out that our 5-year-old daughter was essentially right yesterday regarding that trip. She told us that it'd be to North Carolina, whereas her social worker told me that it'll be to South Carolina. She told us that it'd be in four days (from yesterday) for seven days, whereas her social worker told me that they'll be leaving on the third (five days from yesterday) and returning on the twelfth (it'll last for ten days). I was wrong in assuming that they'd be leaving the country without our permission.

I asked her what they'd be doing on the trip. She said that she wasn't sure, and seemed to want to leave it at that. I told her that, no matter who took any of our children anywhere, I'd want to know what they'd be doing. I illustrated my point by saying that, were they going to Las Vagas, I'd certainly have my doubts regarding it being a good thing to allow. She then told me that she thought they were just going to use up time in one of those time sharing places where they'd likely have access to things like a swimming pool. I insisted on wanting to know more specific details, and she promised to get back to me tomorrow.

If we say yes, then we'll miss two Sunday visits and one mid-week visit with them. They'll also miss a week of kindergarten, but, in my opinion, that really doesn't matter. If we say no, then the foster parents will probably go anyway, which means that our daughters will probably be temporarily transferred into another foster home. Neither of these alternatives is good, and I, therefore, don't like either of them. I'll probably let them go because such experiences, assuming that the foster parents are okay, are probably worth it. I sure hope that the resort atmosphere won't lend itself to too much casual drinking.

I offered my own solution to this dilemma, i.e. that our daughters be allowed to return home before Friday, thereby making the whole issue go away. She then mentioned the fact that they were now looking into returning our children, but that, as I should know by now, this would take some time. I used that as an opportunity to mention my concern that it seems like the best interests of the children aren't really all that important, and that it looks to me more like the children are being held as blackmail so that the adults can impose their will. She told me how she could understand why I might think that way, but that was probably because I wasn't aware of what work was being done behind the scenes by them.

I told her that I knew plenty about what was going on behind the scenes, and that most of it involved social workers getting together in private meetings to invent stories to fit those sketchy facts which they've collected. I told her about how I knew the real stories behind all of the past reports, but that I'd never be believed because, as our social worker put it at the end of September, their reports are made by professionals. I then illustrated what I think about the quality of their professionally prepared reports by pointing out how they saw our friend bring over some food that evening and then immediately jumped to the conclusion that she did all of our meal preparation.

Our daughters' social worker tried to defend our social worker by ascribing good, albeit imagined and unprovable, motives to her conclusion drawing. She told me, for example, that they needed to find out what really goes on within our home, including whether or not my wife was really capable of doing her job. I told her that they shouldn't expect us to put on a special performance if they truly wanted to know what really goes on. She said that if she had any doubts then she'd call to ask about them. I told her that that was a good approach which even agreed with Jesus's command to first take up an issue directly and privately with a person, and then asked her why our social worker didn't do so. She answered that she didn't know.

I noticed, as we talked, that our social worker hasn't been telling her a lot about what's been going on. I decided to tell her myself, therefore, so that she'd be in a better position to draw her own conclusions about where truth really lies.

I told her about how our social worker had blocked the children's psychological assessments. She, being aware of the one full family observation, told me that she was sure that the psychologist had seen them. I told her that that one appointment indeed did take place, but that our social worker had then refused to give the psychologist the foster parents names and phone numbers so that he could talk with them, as well as with each child individually, in order to complete his work. She told me that that was because it wasn't being done by the family assessment clinic. I told her that the judge ordered them to produce the children on demand, and told them that they had no say in what was being assessed since we were paying the entire bill.

She didn't know any of this, and said that she'd check with our social worker to see what she has to say. I then asked her the ultimate in rhetorical questions with respect to this issue, i.e. why wasn't our social worker overjoyed to have us pay the entire bill for an assessment which would uncover all of the dirt that she's looking for. Our daughters' social worker agreed that this didn't make any sense at all. I told her that I'm not scared at all regarding what this assessment might uncover because I know what kind of children we have, and that it must be our social worker who's worried about what might be revealed about the way the CAS has handled our case.

She had a hard time believing my claim that I can play two contradictory roles simultaneously, one of which leaving me very much emotionally involved with an issue, and one of which allowing me to become very detached from it so that I can make open-minded and unbiased assessments. She told me that, as a Christian, my children would be my highest priority, and that would make it impossible for me to see this whole ordeal clearly. I told her that, as a Christian, it is also essential for me to look at things, no matter how much they may involve me personally, with an open mind so that I can determine truth.

I then accused her of having unknowingly become hardened, by her job, to the effects of its process. She insisted that she couldn't do her job if she weren't motivated by doing what's best for the children. I, using sin as the model, explained how hardness usually creeps into ones heart ever so slowly and undetectably until it's too late. Then, to drive my point home, I referred to the destruction which is being brought upon our 2-year-old son. Since she is also his social worker, she understood, without my actually saying it, that I was directing my remarks right at her.

She tried to take the edge off my remarks by reminding me that the next hearing is only three days away and that we don't know what'll be said therein. I, not taking too well to sweeping an issue under the rug, told her that she'd try to have our son returned immediately, without waiting for the results of a hearing, if she were really interested in what is best for him. I also told her that, were I of a mind to do it, I think I could sue them for having inflicted severe emotional abuse upon our son, and that I was sure that it would stick. She asked me if I really would sue them. I told her that I probably wouldn't since I hated the concept.

I told her that they should have worked with us, without removing our children, to resolve our problems and alleviate their concerns. She acknowledged that, in our case, that probably is true, but that, in general, it is not true. With all of the secrecy which surrounds their actions, there's no way, even though I don't agree with it, that I could properly challenge her stock answer. Even she herself must know that it's no more than a stock answer, since she works in foster care, i.e. neither in in-take nor in protection, and since she also knows that they don't tell her everything.

She kept referring to "issues" (plural), so I, at one point, emphatically declared that there was only one issue, i.e. the fact that we let the physical state of our house become so disastrous. She responded by noting that the physical state of a house has an impact on the physical and emotional states of its inhabitants. I asked her to look at our children to verify that they're very healthy and that they don't suffer from any emotional problems. I added that I'm pointing to a long and large track record, and am not just making a claim.

She told me that she did have some concerns regarding the emotional well-being of our children. I asked her what they were, and she, to illustrate, told me that our 14- and 12-year-old daughters were timid when asked by her to order donuts for themselves. It may be that we hardly ever go to restaurants. It may be that, whenever we do, it's usually a very involved undertaking wherein they wouldn't feel singled out. I think, however, that I know the real answer. They've already told us several times that they hate the social workers' tactics of taking them out for meals in order to coerce them to like them. I told her, therefore, that, no matter how nice of a person she may be, she, to our children, is a representative of an organization which they hate. She shouldn't be surprised, therefore, that they don't treat her very warmly and cooperatively.

We also had a short discussion regarding the CAS's accountability. I told her my opinion, i.e. that the secrecy laws make it unaccountable to anyone. She told me how much they all watch each other (which is probably one of the reasons the visit supervisor found our home to be a nicer environment), and felt that that internal accountability was good enough. I told her that it couldn't possibly be good enough since they all agreed on the same wrong methodologies.

My final statement during the call was one which I suspect no one has ever dared say to them before. I told her that the CAS should apologize to our children, and ask for their forgiveness, for the way it's treated them. I pointed out to her that, being Biblically oriented, our children would probably respond very well to that approach. She said that she'd make a note of my suggestion, and bring it to the attention of the others.