Childress, O’Neill & Specia: Texas CPS fixers

I have previously pointed to a trail of contracts and invoices obtained through an Open Records Act request that — together with other sources like this April 10 Texas Lawyer article — shows that the Texas Supreme Court, with Justice Harriet O’Neill in the lead, collaborated with Texas CPS and lower courts, on April 11-12, to rig the outcome of the FLDS case by “training” attorneys ad litem (AALs) representing only the children in preparation for what was supposed to be a “full adversary hearing” on April 17-18.

Further review — detailed below — shows that O’Neill and the Court went way beyond mere training (which would have been bad enough on its own) to indoctrinating the kids’ AALs and poisoning their view of the FLDS religion. This indoctrination would cause the AALs to lean toward the CPS view and, therefore, more readily agree with pro-CPS courtroom and negotiating moves.

Later, the Supreme Court, including Harriet O’Neill, sat in judgment over the FLDS case, reviewing the very CPS and lower court work product that O’Neill and the Court helped to create.  The majority opinion in the case, while rejecting Walther’s statutory violations (and holding that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the original CPS raid and child removal) was strangely muted, effectively opening the doors of the FLDS homes for further CPS and lower court harassment.  Not surprisingly, O’Neill wrote a dissenting opinion that provided additional political and legal cover for CPS and Judge Barbara Walther.

The Printed Primer

For example, some might question why, as part of the AAL training, AALs were given copies of a virulently biased anti-FLDS publication euphemistically named The Primer (get yours here) published by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.*

Others might ask why the chief law enforcer (the attorney general) or Supreme Court of any state in the Union would want to be seen promoting a publication so obviously brimming with vitriol against any religion. Promote such unbalanced tripe about Islam and heads would roll, literally.

Some might say that promoting such a book in any context, let alone that of a specific court case in which members of that religion are fighting to win back their children from the State, is jaw-droppingly discriminatory, unethical and unprofessional. For now, I’ll give a few “professional” journalists time to dig into the details.

Human Primer - Charles G. Childress

Let’s play a little game. Close your eyes (oops, that won’t work!). OK, start over.

Pretend that you are Harriet O’Neill, Chair of the brand new, highly touted PJC, an organization into which you’ve poured your heart and soul over the past couple of years because you really believe that Texas courts — due process and separation of powers be damned — must “collaborate” and “share information” with Texas CPS in order to . . . save the children.

To this end, you are intent on showcasing the success of the PJC and its collaborative virtuosity. Your future looks bright. For a moment, you bask in glory as the Evita Peron of Texas children. But wait!

Anon, a political cloud appears on the horizon. A local judge obviously in way over her constitutional, ethical and professional head has just created (though not without CPS help) a nightmare boondoggle, involving weird polygamists, that seriously threatens the credibility of your new Supreme Court-PJC-CPS love fest. You must do something to stop these religious extremist villains from destroying your baby.

You really need these wacko parents to lose their upcoming 14-day hearing and lose it decisively. But for that to happen, you need hundreds of trained, CPS-leaning AALs to represent the children. See, if those AALs are sufficiently horrified by what they think they know about FLDS voodoo and sacrificial babies and such, they will “pull rank” on their child clients — whose wishes they must otherwise obey — and “substitute” their own judgment (against the parents and children) for CPS to retain custody or regular visitation or at least something (like obligatory “parenting” classes) just to save face.

Who ya gonna call to orchestrate a quicky indoctrination of the kids’ attorneys? Not Bernadine Dohrn. Way too colorful. Ah. . . . What about another “clinical professor” and Co-Director of a Children’s Rights Clinic at University of Texas who — before his most recent six years as a professor — spent 13 years hounding moms and dads as a Texas State attorney, including four years as a lead attorney for the mothership of Texas CPS?

Yeah, that’s the ticket! His name is Charles G. Childress (pic, right). Relevant parts of Childress’ resume appear below. This is a trainer CPS could count on to thoroughly stack the deck against the FLDS parents. A real CPS insider like Childress, together with The Primer should do the trick.

Good work, Harriet! . . . Uh. Good work?

Oh, Harriet!

But Harriet, didn’t you forget something? What’s that other hat you’re wearing? Supreme Court Justice??!! OMG!

Harriet, sit down. We need to talk. At any point in this process, did it occur to you that by getting involved at all in training attorneys for this court case — not to mention tilting the litigation playing field so decisively against one party — that you just might be violating your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, uphold the statutes of the State of Texas, and honor the rules of the Court?

And what of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct** which states:

A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon . . . religion. . . and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

How about The Primer? How does distributing that book to the childrens’ AALs mesh with this part of your Code of Conduct?

Justice O’Neill, Judge Specia and Judge Byrne — all members of the PJC — do Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 18b(1) or 18(b)(2) mean anything to you? Don’t you think, with all you have invested in your positions on the PJC, that someone might reasonably question your impartiality because of your obvious interests in the outcome of any CPS case, not just the FLDS case?

Don’t you think it’s about time that you recuse yourselves from any further judicial involvement in CPS court cases, at least until you resign your seats on a Commission that “collaborates” and “shares information” with CPS when it goes to court to separate parents and children?

* * *

CHARLES G. CHIDRESS RESUME EXCERPTS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES - Austin, Texas (1997-2001)

Senior Attorney, Legal Services Division (September 2000–August 2001)

Provided part-time advice on family-law legal issues while studying Spanish and the Mexican legal system, September through December, 2000 at the Universidad Autónoma del Noroeste, Saltillo, Mexico; after returning to Texas provided legal advice, legislative drafting, consultation and assistance during the legislative session; analyzed impact of pending or passed legislation.

Supervising Attorney for Field Operations, Legal Services Division (June 1999–September 2000)

Supervised 40 agency field attorneys, and provided legal support and guidance for attorneys agency attorneys and as requested for county and district attorneys handling Child Protective Services cases; continued to handle appeals; developed and delivered legislative updates and presentations on other continuing legal education (CLE) topics.

Special Projects Attorney, Legal Services Division (September 1997–June 1999)

Helped implement new legislation to improve the processing of protective services cases by PRS; wrote or edited several articles on PRS practice under the new shorter statutory time frames for disposing of cases and delivered CLE presentations to judges, prosecutors and department attorneys; assisted with the publication of a Child Protective Services Attorney’s Desk Reference, Staff Attorneys´ Handbook and a Child Protective Services Legal Forms Manual; helped develop and implement standardized forms and a new automated document assembly program; provided direct representation on trial and appellate cases; and assisted with legislation during the 1999 session.

* * *

** Excerpts from Texas Code of Judicial Conduct

http://www.courts.state.tx.us/Judethics/canons.asp:

Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1

A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved.

Canon 2

A. A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Canon 3(B)

(2) A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

(6) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon . . . religion. . . and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

(7) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on . . . religion. . . against parties, witnesses, counsel or others.This requirement does not preclude legitimate advocacy when any of these factors is an issue in the proceeding.

* * *

* I Perceive can confirm that The Primer was delivered by the Texas Permanent Commission with a transmittal letter indicating that it was, in fact, included in the training materials delivered to the AALs who participated in the April 11-12, 2008 training in San Angelo.