Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 Source: Ventura County Star (CA) Copyright: 2002, Ventura County Star Contact: http://www.staronline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/479 Author: Leo G. Alvarez Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) SYSTEM DOESN'T DO ENOUGH TO PROTECT KIDS The Star's Jan. 6 to 9 series on youthful offenders brings out two salient points. First, there is a correlation between an abused child becoming a criminal offender and, second, the child of a drug-using mother may be born brain-damaged. These two situations cry out for legislation to punish abusers of children and particularly females who use drugs during pregnancy. Next, let's begin with a simple comparison -- a misdemeanor crime such as cruelty to animals. Being found guilty, the defendant is likely to receive probation of three years -- one of the conditions being that the defendant will not keep pets. That makes sense, since the premise is the defendant will not re-offend if there is no contact with animals. Now, change the scenario. Change the victim to a child and the offender to a caregiver of that child. Section 300 of the Welfare and Institution Code comes into play when a child is abused and Child Protective Services will become involved, confer with the offender, perhaps with the child involved, and offer recommendations to the judge hearing the case. Because it is a case involving a child, the case will probably not be prosecuted criminally and all hearings will be held behind closed doors to "protect" the child. The stated first option of the court (Judge Toy White, Star, Jan. 6) and the Public Social Services Agency (Ted Myers, Star, Jan. 24) will be to reunite the victim with the offender and the caregiver (the mythical family). Since the family will have been successfully reunited, there will likely be no action taken against the offender, and the Public Social Services Agency will be ordered to make follow- up reports to the judge. PSSA will have also closed the case and view it as a success. Now, if I throw a dog onto a freeway and the animal is killed, I will most likely be sentenced to three years in prison. If I severely beat a child in Ventura County to the point of near death, based on precedence already set, I should serve about eight months in county jail, be placed on probation and be reunified with the child, even if I have violated my probation and have an outstanding warrant. Does anyone see the error of PSSA and the judge's thinking here? Am I wrong in the belief that justice is not being served and that children are being exposed to revictimization through reunification? Will abusers see reunification as permission to continue the abuse? The public does not see any of this, and certainly hears nothing of it, because of the closed doors. So, isn't it to be expected that what one does not see or hear really does not happen? Hit someone else's child and the wrath of the community will fall upon you, but hit your own child and no one cares. It is assumed to be your God-given right to "correct" your child. It is long overdue that to truly serve the best interest of an abused child, the abuser should not be granted custody of the victim child. The abuser should be criminally charged, sentenced, jailed or placed on probation, and the child should not be reunified with the abuser. If I strike a child with a belt, it is considered normal parental punishment. However, if I strike another adult with a belt, I can be charged with assault and battery -- a misdemeanor and, in some cases, I can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon -- a felony. When will common sense prevail? - --- MAP posted-by: Josh