With barely two weeks until the placement hearing, CSD had neatly taken away all the options except the one Brenda Hermes had repeatedly said was what Tylor needed. She had read the reports from the University of Oregon Child Development Center in Eugene, and made her decision on the strength of one line near the end of the report. The line, which was really meant as a warning when read in context, said that total non-action for an extended period of time could result in Tylor's needing residential treatment if things were let go.
I don't have a copy of the reports generated at the U of O in front of me. All I can do at this point is approximate the content of those four reports. In general at the time he was examined they found Tylor to be a fairly normal, energetic, personable child of 6 in most areas of development. The reports went on to detail a profile that closely resembled the reports from several earlier similar evaluations.
The only really marked difference was the addition of the conclusion that Tylor had been the object of some sexual abuse, and that he needed to begin receiving therapy for his emotional problems that were starting to manifest themselves. Those emotional problems appeared to be related to the sexual abuse.
The report went on to suggest some different types of therapy that might be considered by his family, and at the end warned about the possibility of requiring residential care if allowed to fester for an extended period.
Solely on the strength of that warning, contained in the U of O reports on Tylor, Brenda immediately jumped to an erroneous conclusion, deciding that the warning was a recommendation of residential placement now. I believe there are probably two main reasons she failed to recognize this single line for what it was intended to be, a warning not to delay action for an extended period of time, not a recommendation for placement NOW.
If the reader will bear with me, I believe I can show how ridiculous the course of events has been. Tylor was taken into Protective Custody on November the 12th, 1987.
Soon after that date he was placed in the physical custody of Mr. and Mrs. Hoeye, Tylor's paternal Grandparents. He remained with them for 20 plus months during which time he completed his first year of formal school and then the full second year also. While he was in their home he was in the Corvallis School District, where he was examined by the Education Service District for the second time, and placed in a special education module in Adams School.
During his nearly two years in the Hoeye, Sr. home, CSD played no part in securing the Education Services or other health care services that may have been required for Tylor. Even though I know Mrs. Hoeye faithfully reported his horrendous behavior both at home and in the school, the CSD showed no interest in this, but was concentrating their effort, if indeed they made any at all, on Tylor's father and mother.
During those two years, the only requirements that CSD ever spoke of were my attendance in their Parenting Classes, and that I seek the Counseling of a family or child rearing counselor. Both of those requirements were met soon after I became aware of them.
It is interesting to note several things about the imposition of those requirements, the notification method used by CSD of those requirements, and their apparent total ambivalence as to whether their requirements have been met or not.
My point is this. During the first two years of the CSD's appointment by the Court as Tylor's Legal Guardian, the only effort we saw put into Tylor's case was if the agency felt they could harass or otherwise damage Dana's or my credibility as parents. Not once that I know of did anyone from CSD speak with Mr. or Mrs. Hoeye about any of Tylor's problems except on the chance that his behavior might be construed to be the result of our abuse or neglect.
The CSD was so preoccupied with trying to build a case against Tylor's parents on the grounds of abuse and neglect that they could think of no other possible reason for his behavior. The complete single-mindedness of their witch hunt was counterproductive as far as Tylor was concerned, but they were not to be swayed from their appointed task. That of proving Tylor's biological parents unfit and the termination of our Parental Rights.
It was also during that time that they turned their proverbial microscope on Dana, Tylor's mother.
Shortly after Tylor's return from a weekend visit at her home, a bruise was noticed on his neck and immediately upon receiving the information CSD jumped straight to the conclusion that his mother was guilty of physical abuse. They saw the bruise as proof that she had lost her temper with him and struck him.
I might add that anyone who is present in Tylor's mothers or fathers home is eligible to be accused of abuse just because they are there. To say that our current mates object to being guilty by proxy, might be viewed as an understatement. They view the accusations of abuse from CSD as personal insults. I can't say as I blame them for not being anxious to participate in any programs CSD may desire to demand as a further requirement for his return home.
On the other hand, CSD has repeatedly proven their propensity to rash harsh, not to mention nearly always incorrect, evaluations of any situation.
Some time later the investigating officer on the Corvallis Police Force, dropped the investigation into the CSD allegations of abuse by Dana on the grounds that the evidence was not sufficient to prosecute her. In a statement to Dana he further expounded that the evidence showed that it was highly unlikely Tylor got the bruise at her hands.
The last point on the matter is that the police officer at least had the human decency to contact Dana and make some sort of an apology to her when he discovered the report to be false. I understand he did so in person, face to face, on a special visit to Dana, made for the express purpose of apologizing for the incident. During the visit he reportedly told her that the whole thing never should have happened at all and that in his opinion the CSD was in error for haven turned the matter over to the Police for investigation.
Isn't it interesting that a policeman came "Hat in Hand" to apologize for a mistake that wasn't his doing. I think I'd like to ask him for his honest opinion of this whole case. What do you think it would be?
Now that I'm nowhere near the idea I started to write about at the beginning of this chapter, I will return to, and complete it. The narrative of Dana and the accusation of abuse was inserted at this point to demonstrate where the efforts of the CSD were directed at the time Tylor lived with his Grandparents.
It only makes me smile to think that it also gave me the opportunity to relate the actions of a true Professional, in the actions of the investigating Officer when he apologized for any inconvenience or discomfort to Dana, in spite of the fact that he had made no error that required an apology.
As the reader can plainly see, CSD made no effort to help Tylor or his family in any way until after the matter was forced to a head, and action was taken to investigate the cause of Tylor's consistent and horrendous misbehavior in school and in the homes he was placed in. The persons who deserve credit for instigation of that investigation are Mr. and Mrs. Pastre and Tylor's Grandparents.
I supported the idea of having Tylor examined from the time it was first suggested, but kept silent for the most part, and said nothing. I had learned by then that if I was in favor of any given action or plan, they seemed to automatically oppose it. If I am opposed to it, they seem to automatically be in favor of it.
It must be a conditioned response on their part.