Judicial Reprieve on Cherrix Case
Though not widely reported - on Tuesday a Circuit Court Judge overruled the local judge in the Cherrix case and released Cherrix from the lower court's order to submit to chemotherapy treatment for his Hodgkin's disease or face contempt of court charges. Further, the Judge restored full custody of Abraham Cherrix to his parents, recinding the partial custody the lower court had awarded to the local Social Services agency. The 16-year old boy and his family are now free from state interferrence in seeking whatever treatment they feel is best. Full story and video here.
In a rare public instance of prosecutorial and judicial rift - Virginia Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, filed a Friend of the Court brief arguing for the rights of Cherrix and his parents against the position of the county/state - essentially commenting on the wrong-headedness of the state agency's position and the lower court's rulings.
This latest turn of events can be viewed from one of two perspectives. The first, and conservative, perspective is that the system works - an unsupportable lower court ruling was overturned to the benefit of the citizen - restraining the state.
The second, and more complex, perspective is to view the case and outcome as a symptom of a deeper issue. This is the view I happen to favor.
Much like a death-row inmate being exonerated of all charges based on DNA evidence subsequently proving innocence - it's easy to hold, "See, the system works - an innocent man set free." The more difficult question is, "How did he end up on death row if he was innocent from the beginning?"
In the Cherrix case - the question is, "What process of thinking led to this case being an issue at all?" While the lower court's rulings have been overturned - the processes which resulted in the case being an issue at all are still in place. The same social services employees are still conducting business (and most probably still believing they were largely in the right for pursuing the case in the first place), the same local attorneys who supported the agency's position are still doing business today - obviously thinking they had a case against Cherrix (for his own good, of course(?)), and the same Judge is on the bench today hearing other cases - perhaps with similar legal principles and interpretations at stake.
There is a faulty process at hand that one can only hope is being scrutinized in the wake of this state v. citizen rights case. And, unlike a capital murder case, there was no jury of Cherrix's peers hearing the evidence and voicing their decision - this was a unlilateral move against the rights of a family arising from the position of the Social Services agency and the findings of one Judge.
As can be expected - not one voice from the Social Services agency has commented publicly on the merits of their position - hiding behind the principle of "privacy laws." When a state agency, operating behind a veil of secrecy, so egregiously disrupts a law-abiding family's life - following the outcome of the proceedings - they should be obligated and mandated to make a public statement acknowledging their position, the rationale that led to their actions, and the lessons they have learned as an agency that will guide them in future cases. Frankly, the Director of that local Social Services agency should lose her job for 1) not seeking guidance on this case from the State Attoney General's office prior to leaping off the cliff, and 2) for using negligent judgment in pushing a case forward that had no community, social or welfare-of-children merits whatsoever.
In an evironment where truly horrific things are happening to children, and the state Social Services agency has a legitimate role in protecting these children, this local agency has greviously damaged its ability to serve the community by calling into question their motives and procedures - entirely self-inflicted.
Hopefully, additional news coverage will focus on the repercussions felt by the Social Services agency regarding their actions in this case.
In a rare public instance of prosecutorial and judicial rift - Virginia Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, filed a Friend of the Court brief arguing for the rights of Cherrix and his parents against the position of the county/state - essentially commenting on the wrong-headedness of the state agency's position and the lower court's rulings.
This latest turn of events can be viewed from one of two perspectives. The first, and conservative, perspective is that the system works - an unsupportable lower court ruling was overturned to the benefit of the citizen - restraining the state.
The second, and more complex, perspective is to view the case and outcome as a symptom of a deeper issue. This is the view I happen to favor.
Much like a death-row inmate being exonerated of all charges based on DNA evidence subsequently proving innocence - it's easy to hold, "See, the system works - an innocent man set free." The more difficult question is, "How did he end up on death row if he was innocent from the beginning?"
In the Cherrix case - the question is, "What process of thinking led to this case being an issue at all?" While the lower court's rulings have been overturned - the processes which resulted in the case being an issue at all are still in place. The same social services employees are still conducting business (and most probably still believing they were largely in the right for pursuing the case in the first place), the same local attorneys who supported the agency's position are still doing business today - obviously thinking they had a case against Cherrix (for his own good, of course(?)), and the same Judge is on the bench today hearing other cases - perhaps with similar legal principles and interpretations at stake.
There is a faulty process at hand that one can only hope is being scrutinized in the wake of this state v. citizen rights case. And, unlike a capital murder case, there was no jury of Cherrix's peers hearing the evidence and voicing their decision - this was a unlilateral move against the rights of a family arising from the position of the Social Services agency and the findings of one Judge.
As can be expected - not one voice from the Social Services agency has commented publicly on the merits of their position - hiding behind the principle of "privacy laws." When a state agency, operating behind a veil of secrecy, so egregiously disrupts a law-abiding family's life - following the outcome of the proceedings - they should be obligated and mandated to make a public statement acknowledging their position, the rationale that led to their actions, and the lessons they have learned as an agency that will guide them in future cases. Frankly, the Director of that local Social Services agency should lose her job for 1) not seeking guidance on this case from the State Attoney General's office prior to leaping off the cliff, and 2) for using negligent judgment in pushing a case forward that had no community, social or welfare-of-children merits whatsoever.
In an evironment where truly horrific things are happening to children, and the state Social Services agency has a legitimate role in protecting these children, this local agency has greviously damaged its ability to serve the community by calling into question their motives and procedures - entirely self-inflicted.
Hopefully, additional news coverage will focus on the repercussions felt by the Social Services agency regarding their actions in this case.
posted by Scott Scofield | 10:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home