Child Protection for the Non-Specialist
A Random Overview of Issues
By Judge Robert M. Murphy

"If a neglected child does not ultimately become a serial killer then the legal system has met the child's needs."
- Judge Janice P. Dreiling

INTRODUCTION
Every week, child protective services agencies (CPS) receive more than 50,000 referrals alleging that someone has abused or neglected a child.1 More than half of these referrals come from professionals. In 2001, CPS confirmed that more than 903,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect. Over one-fourth of these victims were under the age of three.2 Child abuse and neglect is one of this country's most serious problems.

Closer to home, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) confirmed 15,518 of these cases.3 This means that every 34 minutes in Oklahoma a child is a victim of confirmed abuse and neglect.4 The number of Oklahoma children in foster care has increased from slightly more than 2,000 in 1991 to 6,188 children in 2003.5 What is even more alarming is that Oklahoma's child death rates have consistently exceeded the national average.6 Child abuse and neglect or maltreatment likewise is a serious problem in Oklahoma.

DISCUSSION
What does this have to do with those of us who work in the justice system? Is child maltreatment a social/political problem better handled solely by CPS/DHS and other government agencies? Why, how and when did the courts become involved?

The first reported case occurred in 1874. A New York lawyer named Elbridge Gerry7 was responsible for bringing the courts into the forefront of this issue. A Methodist social worker working in the tenements of New York City discovered a 10-year-old girl named Mary Ellen Wilson. She also discovered that the child's legal custodian physically abused the girl on a daily basis. She further discovered that there was little if anything social services, the church or even the legal system could do to stop it.

The New York Department of Charities had placed Mary Ellen in a foster home when she was two. Her father had died in battle in the Civil War, and her mother did not have the means to care for her. Frustrated in every way to get the child to safety, the social worker out of desperation contacted the president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Henry Bergh.8 Mr. Bergh in turn contacted attorney Gerry with the admonition, "No time is to be lost."9

Gerry, a "thinking outside the box" attorney, filed a writ de homine replegiando10 to have the child brought to court. This creative use of the law resulted in a warrant removing Mary Ellen from her abusive home. After she came before the court and the judge heard the facts, the state filed criminal charges against the foster mother. At trial the child testified:

"I don't know how old I am . . . My bed at night is only a piece of carpet... Mamma has been in the habit of beating me with a twisted whip, a raw hide... I have now on my head two black and blue marks which were made by Mamma with the whip, and a cut which was made by a pair of scissors in Mamma's hand. I have never been kissed by Mamma... I never dared to speak to anybody because if I did I would get whipped... whenever Mamma went out I was locked up in the bedroom..."11

The social worker's sister adopted Miss Wilson, who lived to the age of 92 and had a very successful life.12 The jury sentenced her foster mother to one year in prison at hard labor.

This action by Gerry brought to the forefront the problem of abuse and neglect of children in America. He founded the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Since then the legal system and the social problem of child abuse and neglect has changed dramatically.

This article in a somewhat random fashion will present an overview for the non-specialist attorney of the differing concepts in the area of child protection. The article covers several aspects of child maltreatment, legal (both federal and state), quasi-legal and non-legal.

FEDERAL AND OKLAHOMA LAW
Congress in 1974 passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).13 It provided money to the states to improve its child welfare practices and encouraged agencies and courts to work together. CAPTA also required that courts appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) or court appointed special advocate (CASA) or an attorney for abused and neglected children. Since its enactment Congress has reauthorized or amended it every four to six years. In one of its changes, CAPTA now requires hospitals to notify CPS if a baby tests positive for drugs or shows symptoms of prenatal drug withdrawal. It also requires the states to develop a safe plan for all such babies.

Most recently, in 2003, Congress added eight words to CAPTA that directly affect attorneys and judges. It now requires that states certify that each court appointed children's lawyer and CASA/GAL is a person "who has received training appropriate to the role."14 In other words, all court appointed attorneys and CASAs must receive some specialized training prior to appointment. All CASAs before their certification receive many hours of training. Now federal law mandates that attorneys representing children receive specific training as well. The act does not prescribe anything as to the quantity or quality of the training.

Presently Oklahoma has no statutory requirements for what kind of training an attorney must receive in this area. To comply with this act, Oklahoma should develop and certify a training program for lawyers by requiring a certain number of hours each year and that the program be certified by at least the bar association or the Supreme Court. Oklahoma law requires judges with juvenile docket responsibility to receive a minimum of 12 hours of judicial education on juvenile law.

CAPTA also mandates CPS to comply with part C of the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This means that if a child under age three is born premature or with low birth weight or has serious medical or dental problems or developmental delays such as severe speech, language and hearing disorders that CPS make a referral. This should have a large impact as more than 250,000 children annually fit into this category. To effectively implement this provision, judges and attorneys should see to it that it is followed. Congress has appropriated more than $400 million for this program.15

The other major federal law in this area is the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).16 Congress enacted ASFA in 1997 to fix inherent problems in the child welfare system. The Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations in 2000. The three primary goals of ASFA are safety, permanency and well-being of children.

Some have questioned whether or not CAPTA and ASFA and its regulations bind state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently re-answered this question stating that all judges must follow lawfully enacted legislation passed by Congress.17 Most certainly, federal regulations are enforceable by both federal and state courts. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution mandates that state courts follow federal law where state and federal law are inconsistent.18 For this reason, judges and attorneys in child abuse and neglect cases must be familiar with CAPTA and ASFA and its regulations, including the preamble to the regulations.19

One of the enforcement mechanisms of ASFA is that court orders must be detailed and follow ASFA, or the children that the state takes into custody will not be eligible for federal foster care assistance. This amounts to approximately $4,000 per child per year.

The first thing a court must do when the state requests to take a child into its custody is make a finding that "continuation in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child." The court must make this finding at the very first hearing. Failure to do so cannot later be corrected by a nun pro tunc order.20

The next thing a court must do is find that "reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the child's removal from the home" within 60 days of the child's actual removal. Such a reasonable efforts finding has to be made at nearly every subsequent hearing. Oklahoma requires that a hearing be held within two judicial days if a child is removed from the home.21

Typically these are called juvenile emergency show cause hearings or protective hearings. At the hearing the burden of proof is upon the state to show that there is reason to believe that there would be a serious risk of harm to the child if returned home, and there is no condition or combination of conditions that could assure the child's safety if returned home.22

The court will either grant or deny the state's request for emergency custody of the child. If the court grants the state custody, it must file a petition within five judicial days or the emergency custody order expires.23 An exception is if the state has compelling reasons, it may request the court to extend the time an additional 15 calendar days before filing a petition. If the state files a petition, the court should hold an adjudication trial as soon as possible. Oklahoma no longer grants the parties the option of a jury trial on this issue.24

There is one exception. If the state seeks to immediately terminate parental rights in a single proceeding, parents have the right to a jury. Otherwise it is a bench trial. In non-Indian cases the state has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that the child is deprived. In Indian cases the state must prove deprivation by clear and convincing evidence.25 To terminate parental rights, the burden of proof is clear and convincing in non-Indian cases26 and beyond a reasonable doubt in Indian cases.27

If the court adjudicates the child deprived, the state prepares an individualized service plan (ISP-formerly called a treatment plan) and submits it to the court at the time of disposition, usually within 30 days. The purpose of the ISP is to correct the conditions that led to the court finding that the children were deprived. 28

Some observations for the practitioner are that in the show cause hearings the rules of evidence do not apply. Hearsay can be used by the state to prove its case. In other words a social worker may testify as to what is in the medical reports, school reports, day care reports, etc.29

Other unique provisions exist as well. For instance if the court releases a child from state custody, the district attorney or the child's attorney may verbally object, and such objection will automatically stay the court order. This triggers a Rule Six type of review.30

Another special provision is the discovery of DHS records. A party cannot simply subpoena the agency to get its records. It must go through a rather involved procedure requiring that DHS submit the records to a judge not handling the trial to review the requested materials in camera to decide whether or not "a compelling reason exists" to disclose the records.31

If the child is an Indian child, additional requirements are needed.32 The court at all initial hearings should inquire of the parents whether or not the child has any Indian blood. There is no specific blood quantum required for a child to be an Indian. That matter is up to each tribe.33 For instance, the Cherokee Nation has no blood quantum requirement. One only needs to trace her ancestry to the Dawes Commission Roles. On the other hand, the plains tribes typically require a certain quantum of blood such as an eighth or even a quarter.

In addition to checking on Indian Eligibility, a court should appoint an attorney and a CASA if available and consider appointing an attorney for the parents. Parents have to qualify to have a court appointed attorney or if they are not indigent they have a right to hire an attorney.34 In my experience things work better if all sides are represented by an attorney at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings.

ASFA also requires the court to finalize a permanency plan within 12 months. This means to either reunify the child with his/her parents or develop an alternate plan of permanency such as adoption or independent living. "Long term foster care" should no longer be an option.

Under Oklahoma Law if the parents have not corrected the conditions that led to the finding of deprivation within three months, the state may apply to terminate parental rights.35

In fact, ASFA requires states to file a petition to terminate parental rights if the child has been out of the home for 15 of the past 22 months.36 If a child is on a trial home visit although in state's custody or with a relative, the clock stops. Also, if the state finds there is "compelling reason" and that this is in the best interest of the child it may elect to not file a termination petition. Oklahoma has held that it is not unconstitutional to terminate the parental rights solely on the ground that the child has been out of the home for 15 of the past 22 months if it is also found to be in the best interest of the child.37 Some other requirements of ASFA are that foster parents, including those who are the child's relatives, have a criminal background check and that delinquents or status offenders are also covered if the state receives Title IV-E funds.

Since its implementation ASFA has received criticism. Some believe that the purpose of it was to hasten adoptions by placing an emphasis on termination of parental rights.38 Others feel that the purpose was to eliminate foster care drift.39

Another issue that cannot be ignored is whether or not children are actually safer in foster care than if they are placed back home. Many falsely believe that foster care is an idyllic solution to the problem of abuse and neglect.40 The conventional wisdom is that removing the child from an abusive or neglectful household and placing the child in the care of the state can do nothing but improve the child's welfare. The reality of this is that children also suffer from abuse and neglect in foster homes. For instance, four children in New Jersey who had an expedited adoption under ASFA were found by a neighbor digging through trash and living off peanut butter, pancake batter and crackers.41 New Jersey paid the adoptive family, which was formerly a foster family to the children, $30,000 a year to "take care" of the children and provide them permanency. Courts have a duty to carefully monitor all placements.

QUASI-LEGAL CONCEPTS

Next we turn to several quasi-legal mechanisms that are useful in the area of child protection.

CASAs

Court Appointed Special Advocates are called CASAs or guardian ad litems (GALS). Seattle judge David Soukup started the CASA program in Washington state in 1977. Judge Soukup, a juvenile judge, was concerned about making decisions in the area of child protection without adequate information. He came up with the idea of assigning community volunteers to advocate for the child. They became known as Court Appointed Special Advocates or CASAs. Typically CASAs have only one case at any given time. Therefore they are able to penetrate deeply into the child's case. They operate as the eyes and ears of the judge and report directly to the court. They receive no compensation for their services. Currently CASA on a national basis has 900 programs with 70,000 women and men serving as volunteers. Oklahoma has 25 programs serving 30 district courts and four tribal courts.

Upon appointment the court empowers the CASA with broad discovery powers. The CASA receives a court order allowing it to have access to virtually any kind of record dealing with their child client. This includes educational, medical, DHS and any other records.42 I have found CASAs to be an indispensable tool in judicial decision making. If you do not have a CASA program in your county, you should seriously consider establishing one.

As an example, we had a case in Payne County where a child had not gained any weight for nearly two years without any apparent medical reason. Local pediatricians examined the child and visited with the child's mother but found no evidence of maltreatment. Nevertheless this concerned the state and it filed a petition alleging the child to be deprived. The court appointed a CASA to investigate the matter.

The CASA learned that the mother had lived in several different states and had her son hospitalized at several prestigious hospitals in the south. The CASA obtained several boxes of medical records from university hospitals in these states. She then presented these records to the medical practitioners at the Justice Center in Tulsa. After examining these records the Justice Center concluded that this was a classic case of Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy.43 The CASA's investigation of this case rescued this child and his sibling from a dangerous situation.

Mediation

Another tool to use is mediation. Courts have used mediation to settle a variety of matters with very satisfactory results. It also works very well in the area of child protection. The state of Wisconsin has an intensive mediation program for child protection. It works in both the civil and criminal sectors of child protection cases. It utilizes what is known as a collaborative approach between not only the lawyers, but among social services and other agencies as well. It has shown that issues of family violence can and should be mediated, proving wrong the conventional wisdom that parties cannot mediate domestic violence issues with regard to child abuse and neglect cases. It has resulted in providing a comprehensive approach to the protection of children. Oklahoma judges and practitioners would do well to review the findings of this project.44

Domestic Violence

Anyone who has attended a recent legal conference knows that domestic violence is one of the hot button issues. While issues of domestic violence arise in child custody proceedings, they also flow over to the juvenile court. There is a growing body of social science literature concluding that children who witness domestic violence suffer emotionally if not physically.45 Judges have received training in the area of domestic violence with the purpose of increasing judicial awareness and sensitivity to these cases primarily in the area of civil protection orders and criminal prosecutions. Domestic violence also leads to child maltreatment.

One of the major cases on this topic recently occurred in New York. The state of New York had a practice of removing children (primarily from battered mothers) for witnessing domestic violence. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York enjoined such a practice in a sweeping 100-page opinion by Judge Jack Weinstein. In his opinion, Judge Weinstein did an excellent job of tracing the history of child abuse and neglect in this country. He ruled, among other things, that the attorneys provided for mothers in this case were no better than having no counsel at all. The judges appointed the attorneys too late, the attorneys often did not show up for hearings, and when they did were unprepared, and did not return phone calls.

The court found that the problem was systemic; the state paid the attorneys so little that they could not afford the basic necessities (such as an office), yet the law prohibited them from maintaining a private practice to supplement this inadequate compensation. The attorneys had to take on excessive caseloads since very few other lawyers would take these cases because of the first two conditions.46 Also of some interest is the single common denominator in cases involving children accused of homicide; most of them killed their mother's abuser when they were old enough to do so. If nothing else, judges and practitioners need to thoroughly investigate claims of domestic violence and its resulting impact on children.

Child and Family Services Reviews

Another quasi-legal area to look at is the child and family services reviews (CFSRs). CFSRs are a way for the federal government to provide oversight of states to determine whether or not they are satisfactorily performing in cases involving child abuse, neglect, state supervised foster care and the adoption of foster children. CFSRs examine not only DHS but also courts and other agencies. It is more than a simple audit to determine whether the right boxes are checked on the forms; rather it's a broad evaluation to see whether or not the states really protect and meet the needs of children.47

CFSRs examine the following basic issues: 1) Whether the state is adequately keeping abused and neglected children safe, 2) whether the state is achieving timely permanency for foster children, and 3) whether the state is maintaining the well-being of children in foster care. CFSRs are to track the goals of ASFA, namely safety, permanency and well-being. To do so it has created seven general outcomes related to these areas:

Safety

1. Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
2. Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

Permanency

3. Children have permanency and stability in their living situation.
4. The continuity of family relationships is preserved for children.

Well-being

5. Families have enhanced capacities to provide for their children's needs.
6. Children have appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
7. Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

The CFSRs use a rather complex statistical analysis, case file review, individual and group review, and examination of state policies to make this evaluation on both quantitative and qualitative bases. In addition, the CFSRs focus on the state's performance with regard to seven "systemic" factors that determine how well the child protection system operates.

Oklahoma recently received its CFSR. DHS did not achieve substantial conformity with the above seven safety, permanency and well-being outcomes. The major failure with regard to the outcomes was the lack of timely achievement of permanency for children in foster care.48 However, the state did well on five of the seven systemic factors.

Oklahoma has corrected one of the main barriers to establishing the goal of adoption in achieving termination of parental rights. Before recent statutory changes, Oklahoma parents had a right to a jury trial in both adjudication and TPR hearings. The legislature in the last session eliminated the right to a jury trial in adjudication proceedings where termination of parental rights was not sought.49

The CFSR identified other failures while critiquing the courts role. According to data from KIDS, less than 1 percent of the children in an out-of-home placement had a permanency hearing as required by statute. The federal government could not determine whether the cause was due to poor data entry, the fact that no permanency hearings had been held or a lack of court documentation that a permanency hearing had been held. Also according to the statewide assessment, DHS had failed to notify foster care, pre-adoptive parents and relative care givers of reviews or hearings on a consistent basis; and that there was no consistency with regard to the opportunity for these caregivers to be heard in court. Tribal stakeholders also had the same concern.

The CFSR assessment did provide that DHS had an extensive commitment to assess and improve the outcomes experienced by children and families. The state has prepared a Plan for Improvement (PIP) to correct these shortcomings.

DHS is concerned whether or not courts are doing their part in this process. To point this out, the director of DHS sent a letter to (presumably) every judge in the state indicating a concern that "in recent reviews conducted by our staff, we appear to have a significant number of cases in which orders did not include the required judicial determinations."50 It appeared the primary reason for the letter was not necessarily concern for the safety, permanency or well-being of children but rather the loss of federal dollars that would occur. The director pointed out that the state receives $3,051 annually for foster children, $3,710 for therapeutic foster care, $7,184 for group home foster children and $14,764 per child in a level E group home. Specifically the director said "if the federal dollars are lost they must be needlessly paid with state dollars."

In order to help the judges, the director sent sample court orders and an ABA book entitled "Making Sense of the ASFA Regulations: A Roadmap for Effective Implementation," (2001). Attorneys and judges should visit with the DHS county director to find out what is in the program improvement plan that involves the court system.

NON-LEGAL ASPECTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

In addition to familiarity with the legal and quasi-legal aspects of the special needs of children, one should be familiar with the non-legal aspects as well. It is imperative that judges and practitioners have a working knowledge of child development. As an attorney handling an oil and gas matter will have knowledge of geology, an attorney in a medical negligence case will know something about medicine or an attorney dealing in commercial transactions will have a knowledge of business, an attorney dealing with children should know something about childhood development. In particular, the lawyer should understand how maltreatment affects development. Abuse, both physical and sexual, neglect and domestic violence have a profound effect on children. In particular it has a direct effect upon the development of the brain.51 Experience, not genes, modifies human behavior. Exposure to violent behavior is inextricably intertwined with pre-disposition to violent behavior. Research in this area shows that a child victim of unpredictable sexual or physical abuse learns that it is far preferable to control the abuse if it is going to happen.52 Specifically, a child victimized in his earlier years by physical abuse will frequently engage in provocative aggressive behavior to obtain a predictable response from his environment. In other words, he will pick a fight because he assumes that physical violence is a fact of life and he can control it by choosing when it happens. Almost all authorities misinterpret this behavior and punish the child severely, often by physical restraint which reinforces the child's view of the world that adults are mean and solve problems by using force. I have seen this solution consistently applied not only in the system of child welfare but in mental health and juvenile justice systems as well. This type of intervention only works for as long as the adults have the upper hand. In the meantime, the child learns that once he is bigger, smarter or capable of violence he can "turn the tables."53

CONCLUSION

A lawyer working in this area must understand the impact maltreatment has on children to properly represent her client. A vast amount of research exists describing the effects of maltreatment on childhood development. It is incumbent upon practitioners to study this information. You cannot simply extrapolate your family situation and treat abused and neglected children in the same way you treat your own children and expect the same outcome, unless your children also suffer from abuse and neglect. It is extremely important that if your child/client has suffered from abuse or neglect or witnessed domestic violence that she receive a comprehensive evaluation early in the case. Otherwise, you will find that many decisions made in the case will be the wrong decision; that nothing seems to work and the case increasingly gets worse. One has to take a holistic approach to this problem. The purpose of ASFA is to provide safety, permanency and well-being for children. Courts and lawyers can do their part by doing what lawyers do best-getting to the rock bottom of problems and issues. Remember the quote from Judge Dreiling at the beginning of this article; the legal system became involved in child welfare because a frustrated social worker contacted an animal rights attorney. The prominent attorney ingeniously filed for a writ to have the child removed from the home and thus the courts became involved. Now that we have entered this domain, it is incumbent upon us to do the best possible job that we can. Our future depends on it.

1. www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chaptertwo.htm
2. www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/chapterthree.htm#age
3. Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Factbook 2001.
4. Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy 2001 Factbook.
5. DHS web site data and Daily Oklahoman April 23, 2003, p.,4-A
6. Kids Count 2003 Databook Online.
7. Elbridge Gerry 's grandfather was a former governor of Massachusetts and vice president of the United States. His creative redistricting plans gave rise to the term gerrymander. Lawyer Gerry was one of the most prominent attorneys in the country. His law library exceeded 12,000 volumes and the New York Yacht Club twice elected him "Commodore."
8. Out of the Darkness, the Story of Mary Ellen Wilson, Eric A. Shelman & Stephen Lazoritz, M.D., Dolphin Moon Publishing, Lake Forest, CA 1998. The authorities told her that before they could do something the victim would have to come forward they could not simply remove her from the home.
9. ASPCA Animal Watch-Fall/Winter 1992
10. a writ to replevy a man out of prison, or out of the custody of a private person. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, West Group 1999.
11. www.geocities.com/tammyluvslife/maryellen.html
12. supra note 8.
13. 42 U.S.C. §5101 et seq.
14. "Keeping Children and Families Safe Act," Public Law 10836, signed into law by the President June 25, 2003 to take effect immediately. See Significant New Changes to the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: Practical Implications for Child and Family Advocates, Howard Davidson, J.D., Director, ABA Center on Children and the Law.
15. ibid.
16. 42 U.S.C. §§620-679.
17. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
18. Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission, 502 U.S. 197 (1991).
19. See generally, Making Sense of the ASFA Regulations: A Roadmap for Effective Implementation, ABA 2001.
20. A contrary to the welfare determination cannot be made or re-established later in the proceedings by any method. 45 C.F.R. §13526.21(c); 65 FR 4055
21. 10 O.S. §7003-2.4(B.)(1.)
22. id. 7003-2.4(B.)(3.)
23. 10 O.S. §7003-2.4(C.)(1.)
24. id. 3.8
25. 25 U.S.C. §1912 (e)
26. In the Matter of S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, 64 P.3d 1080.
27. 25 U.S.C. §1912 (f)
28. 10 O.S. §7003-5.5(I)(1.)
29. 12 O.S. §2103(B) The rules set forth in this (Evidence) Code, . . . do not apply in the following situations: 2. . . and juvenile emergency show-cause hearings.
30. 10 O.S. §7003-6.2
31. 10 O.S. §7005-1.1 et seq.
32. 10 O.S. §40.5 testimony must be clear and convincing and have the support of an expert witness that continuation in the Indian home is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
33. id. §40.2
34. 10 O.S. §7003-3.7
35. supra note 28
36. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(i)
37. In re A.G. & D.G., 2000 OK CIV APP 12, 994 P.2d 494; Matter of K.C., 2002 OK CIV APP 58, 46 P.3d 1289. However at least one state has. In re H.G., 757 N.E.2d 864 (Ill. 2001)
38. Barbara's Story, A mother, her sons, and a choice-State child welfare agency pressures woman to decide her future as a mother, by Patricia Wen, Boston Globe, August 24, 2003
39. www.childwelfarelaw.info/
40. A Way but No Will When It Comes To Foster Care, Theresa Cameron, New York Times, September 6, 2003. Dr. Cameron spent almost all of her childhood in foster care. She received a Ph.D. from Harvard and is an associate professor of Urban Planning at Arizona State University. She recently authored a book entitled Foster Care Odyssey: A Black Girl's Story.
41. Associated Press, October 27, 2003.
42. 10 O.S. §7003-3.7(B.)(5.)
43. a condition in which a family member, most frequently the mother, intentionally, albeit surreptitiously, harms the child or exaggerates the child's condition in order to receive sympathetic attention. In re M.B., 2000 OK CIV APP 56, 6 P.3d 1072
44. Mediated Child Protection Conferencing: Lessons from the Wisconsin Unified Family Court Project, 41 Judges' Journal 5, (Spring, 2002), John A. Martin & Steven Weller.
45. Protecting Children From Exposure to Domestic Violence: The Use and Abuse of Child Maltreatment, 53 Hastings L.J. 1 (2001) Lois A. Wiethorn.
46. Nicholson v. Williams, 203 F.Supp.2d 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) To read a critique of Judge Weinstein's opinion and comments on this subject see Protecting Children who witnessed Domestic Violence Is Nichols v. Williams an Adequate Response? 41 Fam. Ct. Rev. 517 (2003), Melanie Margarida Nowling; Domestic Violence, Child Custody and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imagining the Solutions, 11 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 657 (2003) Joan S. Meier
47. See paper entitled Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs): How Judges, Court Administrators, and Attorneys Should Be Involved, ABA Center on Children and the Law, Mark Hardin (2002)
48. U.S. DHHS, ACF report CSFR Summary of Findings-- Oklahoma
49. Supra note 24.
50. See letter from DHS Director, Howard H. Hendrick to author March 21, 2002.
51. For an excellent article on this subject see IN FOCUS: Understanding the Effects of Maltreatment on Early Brain Development, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Retrieved 01-10-2004 from www.nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain.cfm
52. Perry, Bruce D., Incubated in Terror: Neurodevelopmental Factors in the Cycle of Violence In: Children, Youth and Violence: The Search for Solutions (J Osofsky, Ed.). Guilford Press, New York, pp 124-148, (1997)
53. id.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Judge Robert M. Murphy Jr. is associate district judge for Payne County. He has served on the bench since 1994. In addition to handling a juvenile docket Judge Murphy also had civil and criminal docket responsibility. The Oklahoma CASA Association named him co-judge of the year in 2003.