Child bounty hunters: Texas courts & CPS collaborate

Texas courts and CPS collaborating to take children from parents? Sounds like conspiracy theory. Evidence? Try this November 2007 Texas Supreme Court Order creating out of thin air — utterly without legislative authority — the Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families.

This Order and recent conduct by various Texas judges, especially Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill, cast doubt on whether the people of Texas can realistically trust the Texas courts to impartially decide child protection cases. The deck is heavily stacked against families and in favor of “child protection” mercenaries who make money grabbing and selling kids or (like Marci Hamilton) traveling the country teaching others how to do it with a minimum of fuss.

The process that created the Commission and its charter reveal the Texas Supreme Court wielding all three fundamental constitutional powers: legislative, executive and judicial. Through the Commission chaired by a Supreme Court Justice (O’Neill), the Court legislates by creating regulations and then implements these regulations throughout the “collaborative” Texas “child protection” system. Later, it rules on child protective cases. In essence, the Court helps mix the CPS pudding, delivers it and announces how good it is.

It should be deeply disturbing to members of the Texas Bar that J. Harriet O’Neill — who ironically signed the Order appointing herself Chair of the Commission (see below) — saw no conflict in sitting in judgment over her collaborative partner, Texas CPS. Why did no one — not even Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid — move for her recusal?* O’Neill’s signature on the Order appears below. Her blindness to such a gross conflict of interest, coupled with the silence of her brethren on the Court, suggests that the Texas judiciary is corrupt at its core.

The Commission began its meeting this morning, at 10:00 a.m., at the Texas Supreme Court. The Order establishing the Commission — which repeatedly emphasizes the importance of “collaboration” between the courts (including the Supreme Court) and “the Department” (meaning CPS) — reads in part:

Approximately 32,000 Texas children are in the conservatorship of the state, more than ever before, and those numbers are projected to increase. Courts play a critical role in determining these children’s future. No child is removed from his or her home, is returned home, or does anything significant in between, without a court order. . . And a judge will decide whether a child’s relationship with his or her parents will be terminated forever. . .

Now that is the kind of power that really turns on a Stalinist.

The words “collaboration” and “collaborate” appear in the Order nine times. For example, the Order declares that the Commission “will . . . improve collaboration and communication among courts, the Department, attorneys, and partners in the child-protection community.” In the eyes of the Supreme Court, parents — who come before the courts seeking the constitutional promise of an impartial tribunal — are apparently outsiders, not part of the exclusive “child-protection” club.

Is it any wonder that Judge Walther — knowing of Justice O’Neill’s bad example — thought she could get away with all kinds of judicial mischief in her remote corner of Texas?  “The mountains are high and (corrupt) emperor is far away.”  And speaking of Walther . . .

Having watched Texas CPS’ and Judge Walther’s outrageous attempt to bag 450 healthy, happy FLDS kids, I began to wonder how many other healthy, formerly-happy Texas kids are rotting in foster care and why. It is well known that Janet Reno’s pet child-rights law, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1996, effectively puts a bounty on the head of every child in America, but the bounty is effectively the highest on the really healthy, happy ones.

At almost the same moment — in November 2007 — that the Texas Supreme Court was busy issuing its Order expanding the power of Texas CPS, Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer published a sobering warning against its expansion including this chilling revelation:

The Adoption and Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sell and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. . .

The system actually creates incentives for CPS to grab safe, healthy, happy kids and leave the abused ones behind, wallowing in their misery. It’s much harder to sell true abuse victims than phony ones.

“Approximately 32,000 Texas children are in the conservatorship of the state, more than ever before . . .” When you consider that Texas courts are now partnering with CPS in the adoption racket, is there any doubt that this number will continue to climb? What other business (besides law practice) in Texas has such a sweet deal?

As in all states, Texas courts will best serve families, children and the community if they will stick to their constitutionally assigned role of impartial arbiter. They cannot fulfill this role if they are themselves parties to CPS actions on which they pass judgment. They cannot partner with CPS and, simultaneously, provide independent, objective judgment on whether CPS has gone too far or not far enough in individual cases.

Finally, Justice O’Neill needs to decide on a career path and stick with it. Is she a Supreme Court justice? Or a child advocate. She cannot ethically be both.

* * *

*TRLA’s passivity on O’Neill may be explained by the $80,000 grant to TRLA that O’Neill herself helped deliver. See page 5 of the Commission’s January 18, 2008 minutes.