Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘You Will Be on the Front Page of the Newspaper for Better or Worse.”
I was appointed to represent “Miguel Sanchez” (not his real name) in the Maricopa County Juvenile Court. He was a skinny African-American child whose mother had dumped him when he was nine when she moved back to Chicago. (While Miguel had a Hispanic first name and surname, he was 3/4 or more African American.)
Before my appointment, Miguel had been in eight different foster homes and had spent dozens of nights in emergency shelters. Just before I was appointed, Miguel was placed with an African American pastor in a distressed neighborhood. He immediately ran away 40 minutes later. His caseworker asked him why. He said that he didn’t want to live in the “hood” and that this neighborhood was worse than living in the projects in Chicago. He was placed in a family with a black foster father and white foster mother in Phoenix’s far north suburbs where the schools were almost entirely white.
Miguel loved this neighborhood and school. He had a knack and hustle for sales. He sold the most objects of a school project. He sold door to door. He was a polite, respectful, and engaging young black man who white folks just wanted to like. I have never seen any person with such a flair for sales.
All was not sweetness and light with Miguel. Another foster child got into an altercation with him, and Miguel stabbed him with a fork or table knife. I got the call from the caseworker and asked if Miguel had seen or was going to see a counselor. Nope. Since no one else had talked to him or was planning to see him soon, I saw Miguel that evening and had a pretty deep conversation about his feelings (which are okay) and his actions (which were not okay), and that he would be facing consequences. (While I was not a licensed counselor, I had been in Graduate School in Counseling and Guidance for a semester and a half after law school, and I reasoned that someone needed to talk with Miguel, and I was the only “first responder” willing and able to act.)
Miguel was placed in a therapeutic group home. He did well, and in six months was able to go back to his foster home, after the other young man had moved on. Miguel dove back into his school activities.
Miguel was considered to be emotionally handicapped and he was in a “resource” special education class. (This is likely why he wasn’t prosecuted.) He hated it. He needed a “Surrogate Parent” to participate in drafting his Special Ed Individual Educational Plan (IEP). I volunteered to do that job, and my Presiding Judge appointed me, with the caveat that I could not bill for my time as a “Surrogate Parent.” No problem. Miguel strongly argued that he felt labeled being in special ed. I pointed out that he had stabbed the other boy. “Give me a chance,” he implored. As his “Surrogate Parent” I suggested that he be mainstreamed in regular classes for a semester on a trial basis. The rest of the panel agreed reluctantly.
Miguel did great. No more outbursts. (No more stabbings!) Lots of friends. He made it. He joined a church youth group and actively participated.
But there was growing trouble on the foster home front. Miguel was not meeting their expectations. They thought Miguel needed to go back to the group home to be straightened out.
But the therapeutic group home pointed out that their job was not to be the consequence for Miguel’s foster home.
Miguel went to his pastor. “Can I live in your home?” “Well, no, but there is a family in the church that just got licensed to adopt.”
I visited Miguel at his foster home the day before his annual “Report and Review Hearing.” The foster parents wanted him out of their home that night. I asked if he could complete his semester. “No. We want him out, and we have the right to demand that he be removed this night.”
I took Miguel out to eat. But instead of going to McDonald’s we drove to the young couple’s home. Yes, they had met Miguel. Yes, they liked him a lot. Yes, they knew that he had stabbed another foster child. Yes, they were willing for him to be placed in their home, based upon the recommendation of their pastor, after praying on the issue.
I called the caseworker, who was living with her supervisor’s supervisor, who was an “Assistant Program Manager.” He authorized me to place Miguel in this home or to call the police to have Miguel go to an Emergency Receiving Center. In a heartbeat I chose to place Miguel in this home. We went back to his foster home and loaded up my car with his stuff.
The next day, the Juvenile Court Judge was quite upset.
Judge: “Mr. Robbins, you made an illegal placement.”
Me: “But, your honor, the Assistant Program Manager authorized me to do this.”
Judge: “He had no authority to do so. This child can be placed only in a licensed foster placement.”
Me: “But by statute, the Court can authorize the child to be placed with ‘persons of good moral character.’”
Judge: “But you made that decision for the Court. You had no right to do so.”
Me: “I am so sorry. I didn’t know that I was making an illegal placement.”
Judge: “The child may stay there for one week, and we will have a Report and Review Hearing in a week.”
I went back to see Miguel. I told him that it was up to him to make this placement work, and this was the only chance he would have to stay in his high school. I said that I had unknowingly made an illegal placement.
Miguel assured me that he would make this placement work no matter what.
At the next “Report and Review Hearing” the caseworker said that this placement was a wonderful family, but that they had no experience with teens, and should be considered only for infants or young children. Given that Miguel had done well in the last week, however, and that there were no foster homes in the attendance area of his high school, well, they let him stay there for now until the placement disrupts.
The judge agreed. I apologized again. He said that now I knew better and that he expected that I would never make an illegal placement again.
I assured the judge that I would never make an illegal placement again.
Several months later, while visiting Miguel, his new foster parents said that he was a most unusual teenager in that he would volunteer to clear off the table and load the dishwasher. They had been bracing themselves for a surly teen and they had gotten an angel. If memory serves, an infant or very young child was later placed in their home, and Miguel was a kindly and attentive older brother who doted on the child.
After Miguel turned 16, he wanted to get a driver’s license. The caseworker could not sign the document for financial responsibility for him, and she told me that I would be crazy to do so. But Miguel talked his foster parents into agreeing to be financially responsible for him if he had an accident and they signed for him, essentially putting their own home on the line if he had a catastrophic car accident.
I have represented over 200 children in Juvenile Court. When I would do a home visit, I would take them out to McDonald’s. But when I visited Miguel, he showed me a ten-year-old used grey Cadillac that he had bought. He took me out to eat. He is the only foster child to drive me in his car and to take me out to eat!
I got an absolute kick out of Miguel. I often told him that he would be on the front page of the newspaper for better or worse.
Miguel turned 18 and was emancipated. I moved to Flagstaff in 1992. In the early 1990s I was interviewed by Arizona’s second-largest newspaper about Miguel. The story ran on the front page. I had that story framed and have it in my waiting room. The article says about his final change in foster placements:
A court-appointed attorney Gary Robbins believed in him.
“[Miguel] was a very spirited, very engaging kid, but his foster family viewed him as manipulative, and that’s when the problems began,” said Robbins, now a Flagstaff lawyer.
“I really got a kick out of this kid who kept pushing for what he wanted.”
Because of a critical shortage of foster homes, the only way [Sanchez] could move was to find a family to live with.
“I asked a family from my church, and they became foster parents.” [Sanchez] said.
Robbins said foster care caseworkers did not share [Sanchez’] enthusiasm.
“I remember the caseworker telling me [the] placement wouldn’t work,” he said.
Today, [Sanchez] considers his last set of foster parents his mother and father.
He lived with them for three years, moving into an apartment for his last semester [in high school.]
“A kid can survive a bad attorney or caseworker better than they can survive a bad foster parent,” Robbins said.
I didn’t know at the time that I had made an “illegal placement.” There are some things that, as an attorney, can be done only one time while the attorney is ignorant. I can never make another illegal placement. But I am so glad that I did so for Miguel.
My life is so blessed.
Published in Group Writing
Thank you for this story, @garyrobbins.
Good story Gary. Thanks for sharing.
I guess I sort of understand the Judge. But the caseworker is someone I would like to see placed in foster care.
The most rewarding part of my law practice was when I represented children in Juvenile Court for 11 years from January, 1982 to November, 1992. Where I like to live is in Flagstaff, but representing children in Juvenile Court is not viable here. However, now that I am 67 years old, I am feeling a pull to again represent children in Juvenile Court.
One of the most prized possessions I have in my office is a bulletin board of pictures of over 200 children that I represented back in the day.
Thank you for sharing that, Gary. You invested a lot of time and, I’m sure, emotion in that young man and it certainly paid off for him. You should receive much satisfaction for giving him a few “second chances.”
I don’t often agree with your views of Trump, but you are clearly a ‘good guy’. Thanks for the story and the good work.
It is great to take a break from all things Trump. I suffer from “Trumpschmerz” which is the continuous pain or ache of the soul that results from excessive contemplation of Trump. See http://ricochet.com/709174/trumpregierungsschlamasselschmerz-or-trumpschmerz-is-the-new-word-of-the-year/
I had a liberal in the child welfare system ask me in the 1980’s how I could possibly support Reagan as a child advocate. My response was that we are all called to make a difference wherever we are in the world, and that Reagan was good for the economy which would be good for all children and families.
Interesting story, Gary. Thanks.
One of my problems with American society’s seeming increased tendency to use “law” and “regulation” to govern increasing portions of life is that “law” and “regulation” require hard lines between “legal” and “illegal” or “permitted” and “prohibited.” Most of life is fuzzy, so having to put everything on one side or another of such a hard line sometimes interferes with good decision making.
Good job, Gary. And good for “Miguel”!
Nice, Gary.
Tabby: “One of my problems with American society’s seeming increased tendency to use “law” and “regulation” to govern increasing portions of life is that “law” and “regulation” require hard lines between “legal” and “illegal” or “permitted” and “prohibited.” Most of life is fuzzy, so having to put everything on one side or another of such a hard line sometimes interferes with good decision making.”
Amen to that. Another issue I am greatly concerned with is the willingness of the Court to get overly involved in deciding the outcomes of custody disputes brought about by divorces. Allegedly by census, 40% of the time the Father gets no visitation rights. To me that is an abhorrent, illegal taking and is no where authorized by the Constitution. Untold pain, suffering and mental illness have resulted as a consequence .
Happy New Year everyone!
These are the kind of stories I joined Ricochet to see.
When was the last time you saw him? I hope he’s flourishing.
This story of costly kindness and hope is a great bonus in our December theme: “Memories.”
Thanks to everyone who chipped in; the month is filled. If you have not been following these posts closely, do stop by the handy guide to monthly themes and browse a bit during the 12 days of Christmas!
January’s theme is up, so stop by and sign up for “Winter of Our Discontent.”
Sometimes you have to think outside the box. My partner and I were dispatched to a domestic dispute. Both husband and wife engaged in a brutal assault on each other. The husband got the worst of it, he was going to the ER and then to booking, his wife was going straight to booking. Their ten year-old son came down the stairs after we got things sorted out and sat down at the piano and started playing. It was a surreal moment. I asked him if he had any relatives nearby. He did, an aunt and uncle. I called them and asked them to come to the house.
I had the dispatcher check them for criminal history, they were clean. His aunt and uncle had been trying to get custody of their nephew. He had his own room in their home, and they had purchased a piano for him as well. Rather than having the boy picked-up by human services I made the decision to send him to his aunt and uncle’s home. He had been through a lot that night, and it wasn’t the first time his aunt and uncle had to intervene on his behalf. My partner and I could have been in some trouble for making that decision, but my partner and I believed that he might as well wake up in the morning and have breakfast with two people he knew, who loved him, and were fighting for him.
That is so great! I am so happy to hear that. The aunt and uncle would be able to file an immediate petition where they could ask for their nephew to stay with them, not for him to be removed first from his parents.
It is always very impressive to say to the Court that law enforcement was on the scene and made the decision for you judge.
Bless you.
Wonderful story. Well done, counselor.
In the movie version, Gary, I think your character will say something like “‘Illegal placement’? Leaving this kid to rot in an impersonal system oughta be illegal. Taking away the best chance he’s ever had oughta be illegal. What you’re saying right now oughta be illegal…” (In a really good courtroom movie there is usually little or no risk of a contempt citation.) There will be murmurs then cheers from the courtroom (which will be crowded per Hollywood requirements). The gavel will be hammered in frustration and the judge will cave to the sheer righteousness of the outburst by the Robbins character. We will need an actor who can do righteous indignation with a noble visage. I’m thinking Brad Pitt or maybe an edgier choice with Ryan Gosling. For Miguel, we should go with a rising hot Latino… I’m thinking Michael Trevino. Get the pitch in shape and toss it to a mogul like Rob Long. What’s not to love?
Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling? How did you know of the resemblance?
I define “artistic license” to mean box office appeal always trumps reality. In my second draft the Robbins character is married to Scarlett Johansen and has to deflect the persistent flirtations of Sofia Vergara.
Far too often the system can be cold and uncaring but it’s obvious you’re one of the good guys. Did you keep track of Miguel? How did his adult life turn out?
You are an all right cat, Gary. All right indeed.
We’ve had our experiences as foster parents, and it is damned hard. The system is, as far as we are concerned, rigged in favor of making sure state workers have plenty of cases to justify their existence.
I googled around, GarBear, and found an article from the Phoenix New Times, from 1994, in which you are quoted:
You are right as rain, here. In the case of our first foster child, blood, bruises, broken bones, subdural hematoma, shaken baby syndrome, none of these were enough. The child went back.