|
In the first instance, Judy went through months of in-house alcohol rehab. At some point something clicked and she completed the program and continued with AA meetings. She goes to at least one AA meeting per day, seven days a week. In one stretch of 71 days she attended 173 AA meetings and became treasurer of one group and meeting leader in another group. She and her children have gone through and continue with extensive counseling because of what the children witnessed. In short, Judy has jumped through every hoop the state has thrown at her.
Mary, on the other hand, was sentenced to probation which consisted of attending some 500+ AA meetings, checking in with her probation officer on a regular basis, submitting to a breathalyzer test on a periodic basis and completing counseling programs.
Mary never once contacted her probation officer or submitted to the breathalyzer tests. When she did attend a few AA meetings she did so drunk and reeking of alcohol. She not only didn't complete any counseling, she never attended.
Mary regains complete custody of her child in two weeks. Judy must be content with overnight weekend visits from her children and will not get them back for months. On top of that, Judy has to travel several miles 3 times a week plus weekends to have a urine analysis for drugs, even though she has no history of drug abuse. Why? The guardian ad litum attorney for the children thought she could possibly turn to drugs even though two counselors trained in alcoholism pointed out the chances of that being next to nil. For that attorney's brainstorm the state is paying over $100 per week for the next several months.
If you're like me you're asking yourself why did Mary, who was endangering her child, get her child back when she completed none of the requirements required by the court? Why does Judy have to wait until nearly a year and a half after her near murder to get custody back from the state?
To say there is an inconsistency is an understatement. To say there is incompetence is stating the obvious.
It would seem the probation officer in Mary's case is either overloaded with cases to the extent of not being able to adequately oversee each case or completely incompetent. In either scenario one must ask where was the supervision of the probation officer? How could something like this get past the courts unless Mary's probation officer falsified documents?
If the state agency has become too large to adequately oversee field officers then legislature's Appropriations Committee should sharpen its pruning shears. If Mary fell through the cracks in the system because of overload then the same committee should increase spending in that area.
And what of Judy's case? Has she not far exceeded state requirements and her children deserve to be home instead of continued foster care costing the state $1400 per child per month?
Apparently the lesson here is not what you do but what probation officer you get. If that's true then the system is broken.
|
|
