Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: Nobody Likes Seattle

Anonymous Tip: Nobody Likes Seattle

Last updated on: October 23, 2015 at 9:37 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: Nobody Likes Seattle 2015-10-23T09:37:05-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

pp. 138-145

Peter, Gwen, Stan, and June enter the courtroom. Gail and Donna are there, along with Rita, Dr. McGuire, and Officer Mark Donahue. Of McGuire, Farris tells us that:

His hair was perfect. And he was at his dandy best, wearing a blue silk, patterned jacket, navy wool slacks, and an Italian silk tie.

I included that for those of you who were speculating about McGuire based on Farris’s description of his attire the last time we saw him, back in his office. 😛

Anyway, Gwen and Peter confirm that Gordon isn’t there, and that’s when Judge Romer enters and asks whether there re any preliminary matters to be settled before the hearing commences. Peter asks for the exclusion of witnesses, and Romer grants his request and explains to those in the courtroom that “the rule is designed to make sure we get just your own testimony and not get things all confused with on witness listening to another witness and trying to reply or adapt.” Judge Romer asks Dr. McGuire, Mark, Rita, and Dr. Schram to leave the courtroom.

Judge Romer explains that Gwen may remain, as it’s her hearing, and then there is this:

“And Ms. Willet, I assume that you are designating Ms. Corliss as your representative for this hearing.”

Willet stood. “That’s right, Your Honor. I’m entitled to one person to assist me from CPS and obviously, Ms. Corliss is the most knowledgeable about this case.”

“That’s fine,” the judge said with a smile, but he resented Willet’s statement of the obvious. “We’re familiar with the operation of this rule on this side of the mountains as well.”

Willet turned red, and realized that it would be unwise for her to talk down to the judge again.

I don’t know enough about how court procedures generally work to judge whether Gail was talking down to the judge—though I did note that the judge spent far longer explaining the rules about excluding witnesses than Gail spent explaining the rule about having a CPS representative—but can say with certainty that Farris is laying it on thick with the Seattle-hate here. Is there really this much rivalry between Seattle and Spokane?

Anyway, back to the hearing:

Peter stood again. “My second preliminary matter, Your Honor, concerns the constitutionality of the search conducted by the two CPS workers and the police officer. We have both filed briefs on this subject and I am prepared to argue the matter now if the court desires. First, for the record, I formally ask the court for an order of dismissal for reasons that the search in this case was unconstitutional, and accordingly, all the evidence concerning the alleged bruises is improper under the principle of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ case from the United States Supreme Court.”

Let me pause here to ask something. Think you that, if a police officer conducted an illegal search and found a hostage tied up in a closet, the court would order the hostage returned because the search was illegal? No. But here, Peter wants to apply this principle to bruises found on a child. In other words, he’s arguing that if social workers illegally enter a home and find proof that a child is being physically abused and beaten, that should all be thrown out because the search was illegal. And presumably, because Peter is Farris’s stand-in here, that is what Farris believes too.

That is disgusting.

Anyway, back to Peter:

“Would Your Honor like me to address the merits of this issue right now?”

“Briefly, very briefly, Mr. Barron. “We have only there hours for everything,” the judge replied.

Can no one in this book tell time?! The hearing was scheduled to start at 10:00, and Farris told us just a few pages ago that the judge had allowed until noon for the hearing. That’s two hours, not three hours.

Anyway, Peter goes on for six paragraphs making his case. His basic argument is that government officials may only enter a home without permission if they have a warrant or if there are exigent circumstances, and that CPS workers should, as government officials, be bound by this restriction.

“In this case there was no warrant, nor has there been any claim to date of exigent circumstances—no emergency justifying the immediate entry into this home.”

Peter then discusses two legal cases—Wyman v. James and H. R. v. Alabama. In the first, Peter says the court found that social workers “making routine inquiries regarding families who receive welfare” did not need a warrant but that those conducting “an adversarial investigation did.” In the first, Peter says the court found that an anonymous tip to a child abuse hotline is not itself enough grounds for obtaining a court order to enter a home.

“If an anonymous tip is insufficient to obtain a court order, it is also insufficient to justify a search where there has been no court order.” Peter sat down and waited.

Willet sprang to her feet. “Your Honor, Mr. Barron makes two factual assumptions which have not been proven in the record.”

Gail explains that it has not been stated that the tip was anonymous, and that she herself does not know whether it was anonymous or not. Second, she states that he does not know whether the tip included the existence of bruises, and states that such a report would create exigent circumstances. She goes on for seven paragraphs.

For starters, Gail reminds the judge that this is a not a criminal case, but rather a juvenile case, and argues that because it straddles civil and criminal law CPS workers “are not expected to follow the strict rules of criminal procedure.” She adds that following “the technicalities of all the rules of searches and seizures which apply in the ordinary criminal context” would result in thousands of innocent children being “hurt, maimed, or killed.”

As a side note, Gail states that “millions of children are dying across this country,” and that “that is exigent circumstances.” This is weird, because Gail would know that only around 1500 children die from child abuse in the U.S. each year. While this number is horrifying, it would take 667 years at this rate to reach a single million child abuse deaths. I can’t figure out how much of this is stuff someone in Gail’s position would actually say and how much of it is stuff Farris imagines that someone in Gail’s position would say.

Gail cites Meyers v. Contra Costa Department of Social Services, in which she says the court “approved the actions of social workers who allegedly violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a California family” because the social workers acted in good faith. She points out that this case is binding in Washington while the Alabama case is not.

Peter stood to reply. The judge, however, had heard all he cared to hear.

“Mr. Baron, there is no need to reply. I am going to deny your motion for now and we are going to go on with our hearing today. Even if I were to agree that the search was illegal, I am not inclined to dismiss this lawsuit. If you want to discuss the legality of that search in some other context or at a later point in this litigation, we can reexamine the issue. I may be a bit too simplistic, but I simply want to find out what is happening with this little girl. Your motion is denied. Is there anything else before we get to the evidence?”

Peter, of course, is thinking of one more preliminary issue—the fact that Gordon was not notified as he should have been. But Gordon isn’t there to point this out, and that complicates things.

Peter glanced at his watch. Nine-eighteen. “Just a minute, Your Honor.” Leaning over to Gwen, he whispered, “Gordon hasn’t come in, has he?”

Gwen shook her head “no.”

Wait a minute! Nine-eighteen?! The hearing was scheduled for 10:00, how the blazes is it only 9:18 and they’ve already started?! This would explain why both the lawyers and the judge think they have three hours, but it’s a plain inconsistency! Let’s flip back to page 48. Yep, Judge Romer says the hearing will be at 10:00! But maybe the hearing time changed and I missed it? Okay, let’s flip back to Peter’s conversation with Gordon the night before the hearing.

“I just wanted to remind you of the hearing tomorrow at ten. Gwen really needs you to come and testify for her.”

No wonder Gordon isn’t in court! Peter told him the hearing was at 10:00 and then he, Gail, and Judge Romer up and started the hearing at 9:00!

Peter decides to delve into the issue even in Gordon’s absence.

“We have a final preliminary matter to discuss, and again we are asking the court to dismiss this case. Our ground for this motion is RCW 26A.04.050.”

Willet doesn’t know this statute, but she grabs a book next to her and flips to it. Peter goes on to say that this statute requires “that in any juvenile case where the custody of a child is at issue, it is the responsibility of the Department to notify both the custodial and non-custodial parent of the lawsuit and give each parent a chance to respond.” He explains that in this case, CPS failed to provide any notice to Gordon Landis and that, as a result, “both today’s hearing and last week’s hearing were conducted illegally.” Peter asks that the previous hearing be vacated and that Casey be returned.

“Ms. Willet,” the judge said, “this motion merits serious consideration. What do you have to say?”

“Your Honor, I agree with part of what Mr. Barron says, but I disagree with his conclusion. He is correct in saying that Mr. Landis—and this is the first I have heard there is a Mr. Landis—is entitled to notice. And he is right that without Mr. Landis here in the courtroom today, this hearing cannot go forward. However, it does not mean that last weeks’ hearing is void.” Gail explains that Freed v. Rose, which was decided just the previous January, found that “a procedural failure concerning notice can only be raised by the party who was not notified.” Gail says this case won’t be in the “statutory pocket part updates” yet but that she knows of it because she was the winning lawyer, and that she can provide the citation.

And I’m still stuck on the fact that Gail is supposed to be this first-rate, prepared, hard working prosecutor and yet somehow we’re to believe that she only just now realized that Casey could not have been immaculately conceived.

“Ms. Willet,” the judge said, “why has Mr. Landis not been served?”

“The truth is, Your Honor, I was unaware of the existence of a Mr. Landis, as I mentioned a moment ago.”

I’m having some serious problems suspending disbelief here. She is fresh off of spending six years as a child abuse prosecutor in Seattle. How—how—would she be able to completely overlook even asking whether there was a father in the picture?! This does not fit with the picture Farris has given us of her.

Gail and Judge Romer begin discussing a new date for the hearing. Judge Romer says he’ll be out of town the next week, so it’ll have to be in two weeks, and Gail starts freaking out. Judge Romer asks Peter if he has had any contact with Mr. Landis, and Peter hands him the affidavit he had Gordon sign stating that Gwen is a good mother.

Oh, a quick side note. Even though there has been no mention of whether Gwen was ever married, and the existence of Casey having a father wasn’t even mentioned until this point, Judge Romer has been calling Gwen “Mrs. Landis” this entire hearing. I’m not sure you can really get any weirder here.

Just as Judge Rome is about to postpone the hearing and leave Gwen without Casey for another two weeks, this happens:

Just then there was a loud stumbling sound at the courtroom door. Before anyone could say anything else, a head peered in the door and said, “Is this the Landis hearing? I’m Gordon Landis and I guess I’m supposed to be here.”

Gail jumps up to say that Gordon’s presence doesn’t mean he’s prepared for a trial, and the judge asks Gordon what he wants—whether he wants a lawyer, or to postpone the hearing, etc. Gordon says he already talked to a lawyer and that he’s “just here to speak up for Gwen” and that they don’t need to postpone anything.

“Well,” the judge said, “in light of this, I think we can go ahead. Let the record reflect Mr. Landis is now present and has waived the procedural failures. Ms. Willet, be more careful next time. I want you to always assume there is a second parent and —in my court, at least—you should make some effort to comply with the law.”

The prosecutor squired in her seat. It was obvious the judge did not like her personally. But, she had prevailed on the constitutional issue, and seemed poised to prevail on the second issue even though it had been her error in failing to serve Gordon. I’d rather win than be liked, Willet thought to herself.

Seriously, what is this?! It seems nobody likes Seattle.

Note #1: Several readers pointed out that the judge should have asked about Casey’s father or other custody arrangements at the previous hearing a week ago. That he did not even think to ask about this, or about whether there were any relatives Casey could stay with rather than going into foster care, was a huge oversight on the judge’s part. As a juvenile court judge, he should know the procedure here inside and out. And yet he blames it all on Gail. This suggests that Farris’s entire characterization of Judge Romer as a reasonable, kindly man who takes his job seriously and is good at it is misleading if not downright false.

Note #2: Other readers have noted that Gail did in fact know about the existence of a Mr. Landis, because she surely read Dr. McGuire’s psychological report in preparation for the trial, and his report clearly mentions that Gwen is divorced and angry at her ex-husband. Thus we must conclude that either (a) Gail did not actually prepare for the hearing, which would be completely out of character from what we’ve been told so far; or (b) Gail lied to the judge when she said this was the first time she had heard of a Mr. Landis; or (c) Farris forgot that Gail would know about Gordon from reading Dr. McGuire’s report. I’m going with (c).

Next week we move into the hearing proper, beginning with Dr. McGuire’s testimony.

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

October 22, 2015

Texas Violates Its Free Market Principles

Next Post

October 24, 2015 Halloween & Fall Open Thread!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Proverbs 22:6 say about training a child?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Teach a child discipline, and he will live in wisdom. Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. Guide the young, and they will not stumble. Children should be seen and not heard.