It may have occurred to the reader that there seems to be something missing in this narrative, (For one thing, CSD's side of the issue!). If it has occurred to you that there seems to be little or no mention of an attorney representing Tylor and his family, your observation is correct.
I offer no excuse for not having retained a lawyer to represent Tylor and his family before I did. I have some reasons, but not excuses for what has turned out to be pure blunder on my part. As hindsight goes, mine is about average, but it doesn't take much effort to see the lay of the land once you have crossed it. The hard part is to see the best direction to take while making the crossing.
The truth is this. While I don't want to go so far as to admit less than average intelligence, I must admit to a large block of ignorance. I thought one thing, and something else was true. While ignorance is not usually a life-threatening problem, it can be under some circumstances. In this situation no one has lost their life, nor is anyone likely to die, or even be injured.
Physically that is.
One of the pieces of information I didn't know was that CSD has no concern for any emotional trauma they cause, to a child or the family, nor do they concern themselves with the role model they play in a child's life. This unconcern is disturbing because by their actions and words they indicate and demonstrate to a child that the values most parents teach to their children about "Honesty" and "Loyalty" are not important.
I am irrefutably guilty of ignorance of the facts of life. That I've whipped myself repeatedly for my ignorance of the truth has not and will not help Tylor in his present situation, nor does it help me to continue to mourn what might normally be called stupidity on my part. The fact that my own ignorance has been the cause of my improper reaction to the situation as it has occurred, is a guilt I will carry for the rest of my days. The fact that it is my son who is the one who suffers for my ignorance only makes the pain of guilt that much greater for me. If in truth I didn't love and care for Tylor as the CSD has in the past insinuated, I would be in attitude much like they are. My actions would be empty and cheap.
I don't however feel cheap. Neither do I feel hollow and devoid of feeling for my son. I do feel that while I can't go back and change the things I have done, I can make sure I don't repeat the mistakes of the past. To that end I have retained an attorney whom I pay with my own money earned by the sweat of my own brow.
Important lesson Number 1. Never accept "Counsel" from the Court To know why, all one has to do is look at who is signing their check. When the Court supplies the attorney, the government is paying the bill. This is especially important to remember when your litigation opponent is a government agency. Bear in mind that an attorneys loyalty is just like any other persons loyalty. Whoever pays the rate, gets the loyalty.
With that little bit of "Real World" information in mind, I have no problem understanding why the first attorney supplied by the Court sold her client down the river at the first opportunity, an opportunity graciously supplied by the Government. The same Government who issued and paid the check she received for her services in this case.
The speed and efficiency with which the words were spoken, followed closely by the Courts "Ruling" made my head swim at the time. It was all done and said so fast that I wasn't even aware of the "Switch" until several hours after Court and careful examination of the documents from the proceedings, but by then it was too late. The deed was done. The gavel had fallen.
(I intend to return to this subject later with a much more detailed presentation of the actions and words seen and heard in the Courtroom that day together with a description of "My" attorneys "Words of Wisdom" to her "Client".)
Since then I have provided for my own Legal Counsel, but there were to be many more "Lessons" to learn as I continued to show restraint and held my attorney in check. (Again the details of the incidents I have just made reference to will be included in another chapter of this book.)
Since redundancy is my trade mark, I want to be as fair as possible even though my bias is absolutely absolute. (Humor, son. Humor.)
It might be that my propensity to slant things my way is so obviously irresistible and consistent, that I will not have nearly the trouble being fair as I would if I were not so completely convinced of CSD's lack of moral fiber, or inability to recognize the truth. The temptation is to continue along this line and discuss mules, two-by-fours, blows delivered between the eyes, and finally end up with speaking with forked tongue, all of which apply.
But, I'll try to restrain my stubbornly independent fingers, and follow the one rule I suggest be the sum total of CSD's rules to live and word by.
I will tell the truth!
For my contribution, I really believed in the words contained in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I also took the Constitution seriously. I really believed it was true
And, last but not least, my cornerstone, the first phrase I ever took to heart, and believed absolutely was, And JUSTICE for ALL. Amen.
It's not a defense. Nothing was changed by my belief. The system didn't even notice when I cried out loud in dismay and disbelief. But faith runs deep and I believed.
Yeah, Yeah, I'm an ostrich. Please, don't say all that. It won't help and I've given up on that whore who stands on the street in front of the Courthouse. I've got to hand it to the PR people she hired though. It had me, hook, line, sinker, rod and reel. I even hopped into the net. What a sap.
Somewhere I missed the part that must have gone with "And Justice for All". I guess I should have stayed in school and learned how to lie with the truth, not to mention the rest of that sentence. And Justice for All who can buy, lie, or cheat for it, walking along on the backs of the downtrodden, kicking the sap who won't just stay down, etc., etc., etc. Or at least it must have gone something like that.
It is with more than a small amount of chagrin I am forced to admit ignorance of the "Law of the Jungle" as it exists in our society. I'm sure the fine gentlemen who wrote the Constitution, or for that matter the ones who enacted the "Bill of Rights", were trying to make the Half Truths of evidence presented "Out of the Original Context" unacceptable and illegal when they carefully wrote and empowered those documents.
In much more recent history another body of "Representatives" of the people, in a subdivision of our nation known as Oregon, spent a similar amount of time and energy writing the "Laws" that empowered the Oregon government to create and operate the agency known as the Childrens Services Division of the Department of Human Resources.
The original purpose of the agency was, "To provide care and shelter for any child who may be in such a condition as to need it." It is unclear to me if the writers of the Child Laws were thinking of abused children when they first wrote the laws, but the plight of the homeless street urchin most certainly was the direct object of those laws.
If all that the Lawmakers were intending to address was the question of the homeless ones, their intent was noble. If they also were looking for some kind of solution to the abuse problem, then they need to be mentioned at the next Nominating Convention for Sainthood. The laws those lawmakers wrote were of "Noble Intent", there is no doubt of that.
However, it is travesty that the laws so nobly written are so utterly abused. If we could talk to the authors of those laws, I doubt very much if they meant to have those laws applied as they are. I can't imagine it ever crossed their minds that they were creating an arm of government without controls. Not only without controls, but without compassion!
As applied today, those noble laws are reduced to the same level of tyranny. It is probable that the authors didn't include some sort of checks and balances on the CSD because they didn't want a child to continue to suffer because of "Red Tape". An understandable and worthy concern. The answer was allow the CSD to, "Remove a Child from a Life-Threatening Condition prior to a Court Hearing." The law goes on to specify Court involvement, "At the earliest opportunity"
In fact, the Law goes on to make many specifications as to the legal handling of the case. So many, in fact, that to read the text of the ORS is at times frustrating, and most certainly time consuming. As I read the laws, it impresses me how many specific contingencies or situations were provided for by the lawmakers who wrote the statutes.
The lawmakers evidently felt that the requirement of the Courts close involvement in the decision making process was sufficient to guarantee the just and fair application of the laws they were writing. Little did those lawmakers know, that by providing a lowered standard of evidence, they provided the one really dangerous aspect of those same laws.
Although ample amounts of suspicion must be present for the Court to take Jurisdiction, there is no written requirement that proof ever be presented that a crime has actually been committed against the child. In other words it's up to the Judge if or when a case is over. Nowhere in the statutes was I able to find any mention of, or allowance for, the unfortunate event of CSD interjecting itself into a case erroneously. Again it must have been felt that just the requirement that the Courts be involved was sufficient to insure just application of their new laws.
The lawmakers really only forgot one important detail: Human Nature. The one the original writers of our Federal Constitution tried their best to make provision for. Good old Human Nature.