Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 13, 1995 TAG: 9504130033
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Take the case of Ruby Barrett. She was 9 months old when, on Halloween night in 1993, a family friend brought her to Franklin Memorial Hospital with a broken arm. Doctors found she had had another broken arm and a fractured shoulder, and both injuries had been allowed to heal without medical attention. Ruby was put in the charge of the Department of Social Services, and placed in a foster home.
Her daddy is serving three years for felony neglect; her mama was sentenced to 60 days, suspended pending appeal. And, last fall, Franklin County's prosecutor went to court to try to start the process of revoking the Barretts' parental rights. He said he feared for Ruby's safety. He should have been allowed to present evidence for such fear.
But the county prosecutor has no "standing" under Virginia law to seek the termination of parental rights. Only a party with "legitimate interest" in a child may initiate such a procedure, and under Virginia law that means a legal guardian or a department of social services. Ruby's court-appointed legal guardian hasn't decided whether to file for termination, but social workers tell him that Ruby's mother, who had another baby since Ruby was taken away, is fulfilling her role as a mother to the new child. Whatever that means.
Perhaps, with education and counseling, Alice Barrett is learning to be a good mother. Perhaps Ruby's father, Clyde, will come out of prison a changed man. Perhaps prosecutor Cliff Hapgood's fears are unfounded. Perhaps they are not.
What is disturbing about the law is its focus on protecting parental rights, as if children are property, mere chattel of the adults who created them.
Perhaps if more weight were given to parental responsibilities - to nourish and protect the offspring who, for so many years, are totally dependent for their well-being on the adults governing their lives - perhaps then the rights of the child to be safe and well-cared for would become paramount.
There is, of course, a strong natural bond between parents and child. Any effort to sever it legally must spring from serious fear for a child's safety, and be done with a full understanding of the gravity of such an action. Changing state law to give more parties standing in such procedures would be delicate, indeed. But not impossible.
The law should be made, at least, to stress parental responsibilities over rights. Society's obligation should be, first and foremost, to seek to ensure the well-being of the child - which doesn't always mean trying to rehabilitate the family. The system must be able to recognize when that option is futile - and to act before years and years are spent fruitlessly attempting to create good parents, as children spend their most crucial years of development bouncing between abusive or neglectful homes and foster care.
As a society, we should not be compelled to deliver innocents into the arms of those who may cause them great harm.
by CNB