Print

Preface xi The stories here, coming from my own docket as a lawyer, are meant to provide an up-close and in-depth description of the CPS system in cases where the parent’s innocence no longer is in any reasonable doubt. Each of the stories involves parents first accused and then even- exonerated. In the course of taking the kids, CPS systems ­tually frequently seem out of control. Lest I be misunderstood on this point, I want to emphasize that I do not advocate keeping children with parents who are genuinely abusive. Nor do I claim that CPS is always in the wrong. Rather, CPS systems need to do a vastly better job of distin- guishing heinous abusers from reasonably good parents who deserve protection from the risk of losing their kids one night. If this book gen- erates discussion as to how to better protect loving families from hav- ing their children taken one night, it will have served its primary purpose. I could not have written this book without the inspiration and support of the parents I call Ben and Lynn here, along with Lynn’s father, Richard. They have chosen to change their names here in order to protect their children’s privacy. Mary Broderick (chapter 1) and Tony L. and Tiffany W. (chapter 16) have agreed to use their real names, but Tony and Tiffany’s children’s names have been changed, as have Thomas and Daniel’s names in the last story (chapter 17). These families, as well as Crystelle and Joshua Hernandez, the plaintiffs in an important civil rights lawsuit (chapter 14), have been enthusiastic and generous in this project, sharing with me the hope that telling their stories will help to prevent other families from experiences like those that happened to them one night. The story in chapter 15 uses the names as they appear in the published appellate court opinion in In re Yohan K. Apart from the already-published names of the doctors, lawyers, and judges in the Yohan K. case or in published federal court opinions (Dupuy and Hernandez, chapters 4 and 14), the names of participants in the trial court actions also have been changed. It is not my purpose to single out any specific individual or group for criticism but to paint a detailed picture of how the CPS system operates at times to the detriment of families. As in any large system, there are many CPS players in specific roles with sometimes correct and sometimes wrong ideas. Stories where the right call was made, where the family was treated with dignity and respect, and where the courts never had to intervene may be the substantial majority of cases in the CPS system, but those cases don’t typically come to the attention of family defenders like me. One