The One I Can Never Forget

Okay, brace yourselves, this is a long one.  I will probably break it up into parts and depending if anyone can stand it, I’ll maybe talk about how I feel now, seven years after it all happened.  This is a story about something I rarely ever blog about, my experiences as a foster caregiver.  This one took place here in Ohio, prior to our moving to North Carolina.  At first I was going to actually sit and write the entire story from memory but I found a copy of the letter I fired off to just about every head-honcho in the county after the fact so I’m pretty much going to retype it here.  I’m changing names (obviously) and replacing them with who will play them in the movie version…even if they don’t make any sense…just go with me here folks.  Other than that, this entire story is true.

The One I Can Never Forget

Three year old Christina came to us on the evening of Dec. 4, 2001.  Tina had been removed from the home of her previous foster caregiver, Joan Crawford, after suspicious marks were discovered on her body during a visitation with her biological mother.  When asked how the marks got there, Tina replied that her foster mother had hit her with a stick.  When she was dropped off at our home, we saw firsthand the lash marks across her arms and the backs of her legs.  We were informed by the placement representative that photos had been taken by the Dept. of Children & Family Services (DCFS) and that the matter would be investigated.

On Dec. 5, Ms. Francine Fishpaw, the investigator, came over to look at the marks on Tina’s body and speak with her about how she had gotten them.  The marks were shown to her but unfortunately Tina, being a typical 3 year old girl, had no desire to sit and talk with Ms. Fishpaw.  After she had left, I sat down to talk with Tina.  She had warmed quickly to R and myself so when I asked her how she had gotten her “boo-boos” she reluctantly began to divulge information.  One of the first things she said was, “Jo-Jo hit me with a stick.”  We later found out from Ms. Fishpaw that Jo-Jo is what Tina knew Ms. Crawford as.  She repeatedly referred to her by the phrase “Jo-Jo is a monster” and that she didn’t like “the monster.”  When I asked if she wanted to go back to Jo-Jo’s house to live, her eyes widened in absolute terror.  She told me over and over again that she wanted to live at her new house and didn’t want to go back to Jo-Jo’s house.  I let her know that in our home, she was safe, no monsters lived here, and nobody would ever hit her here.

To our surprise, we received a phone message on Dec. 6 from Ms. Bette Davis, Tina’s caseworker, who informed us that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that she would be picking up Tina to reunite her with the Crawfords early on the morning of Dec. 10.  I was dumbstruck!  How on earth could a THOROUGH investigation have been completed in the space of ONE DAY!?  I questioned Tina about her marks again and found that her story remained absolutely consistent with what she had told me the previous day.  Now fearing for the safety of this girl, we placed phone calls to Ms. Davis, her supervisor, Ms. Cheetah LaMarr, and our resource manager, Ms. Madge Weinstein, leaving voice mail messages stating that Tina was extremely fearful of returning to the Crawford’s home and looking for answers as to how a child bearing lash marks on her body could be so completely ignored by a system claiming to be looking out for her well-being.

On the morning of Dec. 7, we received a message from Ms. Davis basically telling us to calm down, that she would like to speak with us, perhaps later that evening.  That was the last time we ever heard from her until a week later.  I spoke at great length with Ms. Weinstein who made suggestions as to who I might place calls to.  After being passed off from one office to another, I was finally put in touch with the local abuse hotline where I spoke with an extremely helpful young woman named Patty Hearst who, other than ourselves and Ms. Weinstein, seemed to actually care about what I had to tell her.  She in turn relayed my concerns to Ms. Fishpaw who phoned me.  I told Ms. Fishpaw all about the information that Tina had disclosed to me over the course of the last few days.  She seemed to feel that what I was relaying to her was important enough to call Ms. Davis and stop the reunification process with the Crawfords.  She also set up an appt.  to return to our home on Dec. 10 to once again speak with Tina.  Realizing that we were now racing the clock in our attempts to save Tina from further abuse, we phoned our friend Dr. David Cassidy and explained the situation as well as our desire to have Tina’s marks examined by medical professionals instead of less qualified social workers.  Dr. Cassidy in turn phoned his friend who happened to be the CEO of one of the largest and most prestigious local hospital systems in our area who, upon hearing of our plight, paved the way for us to bring Tina in to be examined that evening.  At the hospital, Tina was examined by two pediatricians.  Upon entering the room and viewing the marks, one of them immediately remarked “Those look like switch marks!”…without even being told that they were exactly what we suspected them to be.  The doctors both informed us that they refrained from attempting to date injuries but after hearing that we were only looking for a generalized time frame (i.e. 1 year?  6 mos?  1 week?) they both agreed that based on the existing redness and condition of the marks that these injuries could be as recent as the last 2-3 weeks.  The doctors assured us that their findings would be made known to the DCFS by Dec. 10.

On Dec. 10, Ms. Weinstein called to inform us of an email written on Dec. 7 which she received on the morning of the 10th from Ms. Davis’s supervisor, Ms. Cheetah Lamarr.  Ms. LaMarr failed to ever return our phone call to her but instead wrote Ms. Weinstein asking for us to refrain from “questioning” Tina any further regarding the Crawfords.  This in itself proved how misinformed this woman remained regarding this matter!  Other than being asked about her “boo-boos”, Tina had voluntarily disclosed to us a plethora of damning evidence against Ms. Crawford.  We NEVER interrogated this child!  Whenever the subject was brought up, as Ms. Fishpaw witnessed, Tina would freeze up, clearly not wanting to speak about the events she feared and did not understand.  And her story, repeated to us many times over the course of our providing foster care, always remained totally consistent and never varied.  Ms. LaMarr went on to insinuate that perhaps we were overreacting as Tina’s social worker had never noticed any fear shown on her part toward the Crawfords.  Finally, she wrote that, although the re-unification would not take place on Dec. 10, Tina would still be removed from our home early that week.  How this woman was completely able to defy any procedure, bypass an ongoing investigation and completely dismiss the findings of three medical  professionals (the two pediatricians as well as the Triage doctor who examined on the night of the initial placement), the admissions of the child and the markings on the child’s body, made it extremely clear to us that this case was receiving, in the best case scenario, far less attention that such a serious situation warranted.

That afternoon, Ms. Fishpaw returned to once again speak with Tina.  Although she warmed to her a bit more quickly this time, she still refused to speak to her about how she received her “boo-boos”.  Her behavior was lively and normal for a three year old until each time the subject of her marks was approached, at which point she would become sullen, quiet and nervously rub at her eyes and mouth.  All of this was witnessed by Ms. Fishpaw.  She was aware of our visit to the hospital and made clear her intentions of speaking with the doctors who examined Tina.  She also informed us that she had spoken with Tina’s daycare teachers who reported nothing unusual in her behavior and spoke highly of Ms. Crawford.  I will point out that these people did not live with Tina.  From all outward signs, Tina appears to be a typical three year old girl…until she is questioned about the events that transpired to cause the markings on her body.  Only Tina and the Crawfords will ever know what goes on behind the closed doors of their home, therefore the opinion of “bystanders” in this scenario should not hold much weight in the matter.  Ms. Fishpaw also told us of Ms. Crawfords reasoning behind the marks on Tina’s body.  She claimed that Tina had gotten the “scratches” while helping carry wood into the house.  That may have explained the marks on her arms but by no means explained how the same type of marks were found across the backs of both legs.  Finally, Ms. Fishpaw explained to us that although she was investigating this matter, the social worker (Ms. Davis) really held final say in where the child would ultimately be placed.  We realized at this point that it would not be with us, no matter what the findings of the investigation were.  In fact, we now believe that had Tina actually told Ms. Fishpaw about being hit with the stick, it would not have changed the outcome of this case in any way.  Someone in this system was adamant about protecting the Crawfords rather than the child and, sadly, Tina’s safety was of no concern to them.

To be continued….