Jury Duty on Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) case

[ThePythonicCow]

I wrote the following on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. I then held back posting it, until Thursday, November 24, 2016, so as not to violate the commitment that I made not to discuss this case in public until after the jury verdict was rendered.

===

Yesterday, 14 Nov 2016, I spent the day in a court house in Denton, Texas, as one of approximately 70 prospective jurors being considered to hear a case between Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) and the parents of a child who was taken from them, about three days after birth, while the mother was still in the hospital.

The judge allowed both sides of the case a couple of hours to ask questions of us prospective jurors, and then the judge and the counsels for both sides met in closed hearing for a couple of hours, and decided which fourteen of us (twelve jurors and two alternates) would be seated as the jury to hear the case, over the coming week. The case will be decided when any ten of the jurors agree on a verdict. Since this is a civil case, not a criminal case, a verdict does not require the unanimous agreement of all twelve jurors.

The judge allowed both sides of the case, including the lawyer for the CPS side, and the parents themselves and their pro bono lawyer, to "leak" some details of the upcoming case, so that our individual reactions could be queried. Presumably neither side wanted to seat jurors who had strong and articulate biases against their side.

The counsel for CPS was a capable and engaging woman in perhaps her fifties, who made some effort to draw out comments from any prospective jurors (such as myself, it happened) who might have too much bias against CPS. She repeatedly stated that the primary goal of CPS was what was in the "best interests" of the child.

The counsel for the parents was a pro-bono lawyer, a tall man in perhaps his sixties, who was a bit less disciplined in his demeanor.

The case was being brought by CPS, against the parents, asking to permanently terminate any rights they had as parents to continue pursuing the return of custody of their child.

What was leaked was not "sworn testimony", and no effort was made to provide a complete or balanced case, so anything I say here about this case is speculation, based on the hints that one or the other side of the case chose to tease us with, to draw out any prospective jurors who might be hostile to their side of the case.

Apparently the couple in question had known each other for ten or twenty years, and were the parents of three children. Neither of them had any children by any other partners. When he was 18 years old, the man was on drugs and was stealing for his money. He had spent five years in prison for some crime related to this activity. Both of them appeared to me to have abused meth in the past ... thin, agitated, talkative whether appropriate or not. The judge showed quite a bit of patience with the verbal interjections of the couple, especially the mother. She was upset and in poor control of her demeanor. In her view, CPS had stolen her child, without cause, and she wanted her child back. Her husband was with her all the way on this endeavor.

Both of the couple had "found God, the Lord Jesus, as their savior", and the father read us scriptures from the bible he kept with him, until the judge asked him not to continue doing that.

Apparently the first child of the couple had been, and or was still being, raised by them or by a relative of the couple.

Apparently the second child died while next to the mother, as she was sleeping, when the child was two years old, for an unknown cause of death.

Apparently the third child was taken from the mother, three days after birth, without her consent or prior knowledge, and she was then escorted from the hospital by the police. At that point, the couple was living in their van, lacking a permanent home. The mother stated that she and her husband were known to be free of drugs at that time. That third birth was about a year ago now.

The case before the court was brought by CPS, to permanently remove any further parenting rights or rights to further appeal the courts for the return of their third child.

My wild speculation is that this might have been a case in which CPS took the child for abusive or Satanic purposes, and that CPS was now seeking to "shut the parents up", to keep them from persisting in their efforts to get their third child back.

If I had been seated (an unlikely occurrence, given my vocal demonstration that I would not likely be a docile and compliant juror), and if the facts and law presented to us in trial were consistent with my above speculations, then, unless it was shown to us, the jury, that the child was alive and well and in reasonable care, then I expect that I would have concluded, after hearing the case this week, that there was no way in hell that I was going to terminate the parent's rights to continue to pursue the return of their child, regardless of how unsympathetic parents they might be, even if this meant that I had had to attempt to educate my fellow jurors on Jury Nullification.

From what I can guess of the case from the hints given us, Jury Nullification would not have been needed. That's when the jury decides not to decide in accordance with the law and evidence as presented. It appeared to me from the evidence hinted so far that CPS had not followed the letter of the law in taking of the child in the first place, and that CPS was relying on the rather unsympathetic demeanor of the parents to persuade the jury to rule in favor of the CPS and permanently remove the parents rights to continue pursuing custody.

[ThePythonicCow]

Update - I was not selected to serve on the jury. Fourteen were selected (12 jurors and 2 alternates), and the remaining 60 or so of us were sent home at the end of the day, Monday, November 14, 2016. I do not know, and have not attempted to find out, what became of the case after that day.

[AutumnW]

...or the government wants to keep the child away from the parents because they are former twitchy meth heads who tend to suffocate their infants when they roll over in their sleep??

[ThePythonicCow]

...or the government wants to keep the child away from the parents because they are former twitchy meth heads who tend to suffocate their infants when they roll over in their sleep??

yes - quite possible

[ThePythonicCow]

My basic problem with the case was that we (the jury, had I been on it) would have been asked to choose between (1) some former twitchy meth heads and (2) a complete unknown, as to what was best for the child. It appeared, from what hints we prospective jurors saw of the case on jury selection day, that absolutely nothing would be presented as to the well being, care or status of the child.

Behind this door is a hungry alligator.

Behind this door is ... lord only knows ... perhaps a kindly foster home ... perhaps a Satanic grave.

When a legal system that I don't trust puts a question that loaded to me, I am inclined to choose the alligator.

[AutumnW]

There is hard core proof that babies are immediately adopted out to loving stable parents. Plenty of living breathing examples, in the U.S.

Where is the irrefutable evidence that babies end up in satanic graves? Forget irrefutable, where is there good solid circumstantial evidence that this happens, other than, "someone said..."

[Ewan]

(an unlikely occurrence, given my vocal demonstration that I would not likely be a docile and compliant juror)

Oh Paul, I wish you hadn't done that, what use were you once you were sent home? But I don't blame you either, god forbid I find myself in a similar situation.


Just brought to mind 2 films, Runaway Jury and 12 Angry Men.

[ThePythonicCow]

There is hard core proof that babies are immediately adopted out to loving stable parents. Plenty of living breathing examples, in the U.S.

Where is the irrefutable evidence that babies end up in satanic graves? Forget irrefutable, where is there good solid circumstantial evidence that this happens, other than, "someone said..."

I have no such evidence. I have (many times over) evidence that much goes on, good, bad and sideways, that I knew nothing of, and I have a basically cynical nature when it comes to human nature, after it has been corrupted for far too long by far too much power.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



(an unlikely occurrence, given my vocal demonstration that I would not likely be a docile and compliant juror)

Oh Paul, I wish you hadn't done that, what use were you once you were sent home? But I don't blame you either, god forbid I find myself in a similar situation.


Just brought to mind 2 films, Runaway Jury and 12 Angry Men.
Yes - part of me wishes I had not done that either :).

The primary reason for my posting, in somewhat boring detail, what transpired that day was so that others, who might find themselves in similar situations, in the future, might have had an opportunity to consider, ahead of time, how best to handle the situation.

[ThePythonicCow]

Right now, if I could reincarnate into the twelve beings who were the jurors who decided that case, and if I could go back in time, then my inclination, prior to hearing the case, would have been to come back to the judge with a firm and unanimous result: "We, the jury, are being asked to decide what's best for a child, without a shred of evidence as to the present well being of that child or of the care being provided it. We the jury refuse to render a verdict."

[Flash]

I do not know for USA, but I do know for Canada.

When children agencies are demanding to withdraw any parental rights to the biological parents, and go to court for this, it is usually because there is already people who want to adopt the child, most often those already taking care of the child. Not allowing for withdrawal of parental rights cuts the child from nice adoptive parents who have learned to love him. My neighbour adopted 4 children that way. But in order to invest time, money, love and more for those children, she needed to have the parental rights withdrawn from the mother and father, both meth addicts having made 5 children all placed by the state (2 of them with my neighbour, two more from another drug addicts family).

They do not go to court for satanic purposes, in these cases, I bet anything that the child is declared dead prior, or not even ever registered as being born. It is also much easier to buy children directly from the addicts than go through the court system where everything is traceable.

My opinion here.

You may read too much conspiracy Paul :p

[AutumnW]

Paul, I am VERY suspicious too...always trying to see what lies beneath the surface. And I know all sorts of weird creepy crap goes on. But I also know that not all forms, branches, or agencies of govt are completely corrupt, and particularly not corrupt to the point of anything as gruesome as procuring children for ritual sacrifice.

But...I do feel that child procurement (and adult murder) for horrible things like tissue and organ transplants, goes on and the collective unconscious of those in the developed world has felt it and been trying to zero in on the who, what, where and when. I think our collective agitation about this began a couple of decades ago.

People all over the developing world are being abused in ways we can barely comprehend, not just children. But the collective is more responsive to the sense of children being abused because we are a child nurturing species.

It is VERY difficult to sort the signal to noise ratio on this topic.

I feel that most of the ritualistic abuse, murder, slave trade in children, murder for organs, is going to happen in areas where people are the poorest and most vulnerable. So, likely satanic graves in war torn parts of Africa, and organ trade in undocumented people trying to flee war ravaged lands.

I didn't mean to be dismissive of your sense of the world. This subject means a LOT to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

I didn't mean to be dismissive of your sense of the world. This subject means a LOT to me.
Oh - don't worry - I don't feel at all dismissed - at least no more than I have myself dismissed my own various, multiple, conflicted and contradictory views :).

¤=[Post Update]=¤


When children agencies are demanding to withdraw any parental rights to the biological parents, and go to court for this, it is usually because there is already people who want to adopt the child, most often those already taking care of the child. Not allowing for withdrawal of parental rights cuts the child from nice adoptive parents who have learned to love him. My neighbour adopted 4 children that way. But in order to invest time, money, love and more for those children, she needed to have the parental rights withdrawn from the mother and father, both meth addicts having made 5 children all placed by the state (2 of them with my neighbour, two more from another drug addicts family).
That makes good sense - thanks!

[Ewan]

I think this thread may prove very valuable in a much wider context than first viewed.

Paul has noted, correctly imo, "(we) are being asked to decide what's best for a child, without a shred of evidence as to the present well being of that child"

Both Autumn W and Flash have provided alternative perspectives that equally hold merit.

How are we to judge any situation, in any scenario you care to think about, without a complete knowledge of all the factors, both past and present, (and dare I say, future).

For instance, how are we to know that this child was not a lifeline for the woman to 'atone' for her previous loss. (Already I dip into the realm of speculation by mentioning the word atone). Perhaps it was all the man needed to make sure he stayed on his new-found path.

CPS comes in, meaning well - righteous intention, (and the road to hell is paved in such), and mayhaps they save the life of that child, or perhaps they set back the (arranged*) development of two tortured souls.

How are we to know?

Child abuse is an abhorrent fact of life in this cycle. Numerous reports list CIA involvement in child trafficing from war zones. Frequently establishments that are designed to care for the abandoned and neglected get linked to abuse scandals.

*another subject perhaps, based on my own understandings of universal law.

[AutumnW]

Ewan, oh for sure. Refugee camps have documented the abuses heaped on the internees, in UN certified camps, by UN workers. Sex for food being the most dominant.

There are as many Karmic possibilities for the child and parents as moves on a chess board. I can't help but advocate for what may be the most superficially moral response, though, based on the information provided.

Studies of children unintentionally suffocated in bed by a mother, (a very common cause of infant death in medieval times) shows that this is near impossible for a mother to do, unless she is drunk or stoned to the point of deep anaesthesia. So, it is assumed that most of the children who died this way, historically, were victims of infanticide or extreme drunkeness.

The medical establishment are likely hip to this -- but because they can't say with 100% accuracy, in each and every case, it wouldn't be permitted in a court of law. But as it is a civil case, "beyond a shadow do a doubt" is replaced by "beyond reasonable doubt," so jurors are asked to use reason, regarding other known facts.

[ThePythonicCow]

Studies of children unintentionally suffocated in bed by a mother, (a very common cause of infant death in medieval times) shows that this is near impossible for a mother to do, unless she is drunk or stoned to the point of deep anaesthesia. So, it is assumed that most of the children who died this way, historically, were victims of infanticide or extreme drunkeness.
That sounds likely to me ... it is difficult for me to imagine that a mother, in her right and clear mind, even asleep, would unknowingly suffocate her healthy child.

Another (conspiracy theory based) possibility that crossed my mind: if the child had received too many vaccinations (for it to cope with), then the death of this mother's second child could have been a case of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), of unknown cause (in the view of the Mainstream Fake News - MFN), but more likely caused by vaccines (in the view of some conspiracy nuts, such as myself.)

[Ewan]

Ewan, oh for sure. Refugee camps have documented the abuses heaped on the internees, in UN certified camps, by UN workers. Sex for food being the most dominant.

There are as many Karmic possibilities for the child and parents as moves on a chess board. I can't help but advocate for what may be the most superficially moral response, though, based on the information provided.

Studies of children unintentionally suffocated in bed by a mother, (a very common cause of infant death in medieval times) shows that this is near impossible for a mother to do, unless she is drunk or stoned to the point of deep anaesthesia. So, it is assumed that most of the children who died this way, historically, were victims of infanticide or extreme drunkeness.

The medical establishment are likely hip to this -- but because they can't say with 100% accuracy, in each and every case, it wouldn't be permitted in a court of law. But as it is a civil case, "beyond a shadow do a doubt" is replaced by "beyond reasonable doubt," so jurors are asked to use reason, regarding other known facts.

:offtopic:
What a curious statistic. Does this imply women were commonly drunk or maniacal in medieval times, or perhaps does it reflect the life of the poor with 6, 7, 8 to a bed - and undernourished at that.
:focus:

[AutumnW]

Hi Paul, look up 'sudden infant death syndrome' and 'Munchausens by Proxy'. Then watch the youtube videos. This is, thankfully very rare and doesn't represent most SIDS -- but nonetheless very very horrifying. Right up your alley!LOL:p

[AutumnW]

Ewan, probably all of the above. Infanticide was very common way back when. I hope this doesn't sound callous -- but think of mothers of small children, you might know, who seem to be a little distant from their children, prefer the company of adults and enjoy a good party. They have one maybe two kids and they manage but the kids generally aren't happy.

Now take that same personality type, in a woman, add 4 or 5 kids, poverty and a mead swilling, abusive, creep-in-a-codpiece husband. Would these women have to be insane to kill their own kids? I don't know. I don't like it, but I can see women intentionally offing their babies back then. They didn't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

[Satori]

What Paul described at the beginning of his post is a pretty good summary of jury voir dire. That is the process used in the USA, and some other countries, to select a jury of 12, or 6, plus 2 alternates to hear a case and return a verdict.

Paul was not selected as a juror and he did not hear the evidence presented after voir dire and during the trial. When describing his own take on the voir dire process he admitted to reaching conclusions about the case, before hearing the evidence. I comment Paul for his candor. I really do. Because as a trial lawyer he confirmed to me what many lawyers and studies have confirmed. Voir dire is very important. People who are eventually selected to be on the jury often have reached conclusions before hearing the evidence, based upon extraneous factors. It is human nature.

I suspect that Paul may have been excused by the State because CPS sensed he was biased against the State. It is possible both sides agreed to bump him. Quite likely the State used a peremptory challenge to get him off the jury. That means no reason had to be given, as opposed to finding a cause to get him off.

Sometimes during voir dire prospective jurors are asked not to form an opinion about right and wrong, who wins etc... but rather wait to hear and see the evidence before reaching a conclusion. Other times, it is not until one is on the jury that one is directed (not merely asked) to not form opinions and conclusions about a case until all the evidence is in. I am convinced that jurors reach their opinions long before all the evidence us in. They make decisions based upon how they perceive such things as how the parties look, how their lawyers look and carry themselves and their overall sense of the issues in the case based upon personal experience. Paul's experience tends to confirm that.

Thank you Paul for your perspective and candor. Although, as a lawyer, I'm ambivalent about whether I'd feel more comfortable if jurors did reserve judgement, i.e., verdict, until after all the evidence is in, or whether I like having the opportunity to convince them of the merits of my client's case based on voir dire only. I try to do it in voir dire, opening, with evidence during the trial, and in closing. But a heck of a lot depends on the facts, the law, a fair and impartial judge and a sincere jury. A lot also depends on whether they like the way my client and I look too. Go figure.

[ThePythonicCow]

I suspect that Paul may have been excused by the State because CPS sensed he was biased against the State.
I might have been rejected by all three parties:

I stated I was biased against ("grave reservations with", I believe is the term I used) the very idea of a CPS empowered to take children from parents. Scratch the prosecution (the "State", Texas CPS).
I stated that the job of the jury was to evaluate the evidence presented by the two sides, in accordance with the law and instructions provided by the judge, with the "possible exception of jury nullification, which you probably don't want to talk about more". Scratch the Judge.
I stated I was strongly biased against the demeanor of the defendants, who were very different than me (I forget the words I used ... it was after the mother had gone off on another meth-like rant for five minutes.) Scratch the defense.
What you say makes sense to me, Satori, with one difference. It seems perfectly normal to me (but then maybe I'm not a "normal" person) to reach multiple tentative, sometimes contradictory, conclusions, while examining a situation. One keeps listening and when the facts contradict one's conclusions, one changes one's conclusions (or changes the facts, sometimes, if sufficiently empowered or sufficiently lacking in integrity <grin>.)

As to whether or not the judge can ask, or direct, anyone to reach or not reach conclusions, tentative or not ... that's none of his damn business in my book. I would mentally use "Clintonesque-like" legal word parsing, if necessary, in order to appear to take some oath or make some promise to think or not think something. I am the sovereign master of my thoughts ... period.

[Bluegreen]

- deleted -
Happy Thanksgiving!

:)

[ThePythonicCow]

Because as a trial lawyer he confirmed to me what many lawyers and studies have confirmed. Voir dire is very important. People who are eventually selected to be on the jury often have reached conclusions before hearing the evidence, based upon extraneous factors. It is human nature.
It was transparently obvious to me that both the prosecution and the defense knew full well that "voir dire" was an important time to begin to persuade the future empaneled jury of the merits of their position, and that the judge fully intended, within limits of time and appearances, to allow them to do just that.

[Satori]

Paul, I in no way meant to even imply that you were in the wrong in any way or that the judicial system is perfect and faultless. Far from it. If I came across that way my apologies. I really took your post as a reminder for me of human nature and how the whole process of voir dire and jury selection is a crap shoot. I respect jurors and juries because in my experience they take their responsibilities seriously and want to get to the right result. BTW Given the things you stated in court I'm sure both parties and the judge agreed you should be excused for cause, especially by mentioning jury nullification. The system hates it when a potential juror knows and asserts his/her rights. The system hates it more if it gets spread in a jury room.

[ThePythonicCow]

Paul, I in no way meant to even imply that you were in the wrong in any way or that the judicial system is perfect and faultless. Far from it.
I totally did not find any implication in your post that you thought I was in the wrong:).

As I said, your post made sense to me. Good post.

[Carmody]

Behind this door is a hungry alligator.

Behind this door is ... lord only knows ... perhaps a kindly foster home ... perhaps a Satanic grave.

When a legal system that I don't trust puts a question that loaded to me, I am inclined to choose the alligator.

Thus endeth the Trump/Clinton choice lesson. (re: similarities in reasoning)

[robinr1]

That would strongly imply that the government, or governmental agencies care one bit about the well being of any of its citizens. That idea is patently untrue.






...or the government wants to keep the child away from the parents because they are former twitchy meth heads who tend to suffocate their infants when they roll over in their sleep??

yes - quite possible

[AutumnW]

There are many good people with government jobs doing their best for their fellow citizens. I have dealt with quite a few people working for the IRS, lately. A few are good enough, but others are outstanding. They are helpful and really kind.

Many agencies have corruption, at the top. Typical forms of nepotism, graft, embezzlement, etc...occur. Systemic abuse is legislated by the 'three strikes' rule, in the U.S. in the criminal justice system. It needs a thorough overhaul.

But, you have to remember that most of the mundane, day to day activity in family courts and civil courts and in other governmental agencies is finessed by people who are trying to get by, like you, who have problems of their own and who are trying to do their best, sometimes with a lack of proper funding.

[Satori]

There are many good people with government jobs doing their best for their fellow citizens. I have dealt with quite a few people working for the IRS, lately. A few are good enough, but others are outstanding. They are helpful and really kind.

Many agencies have corruption, at the top. Typical forms of nepotism, graft, embezzlement, etc...occur. Systemic abuse is legislated by the 'three strikes' rule, in the U.S. in the criminal justice system. It needs a thorough overhaul.

But, you have to remember that most of the mundane, day to day activity in family courts and civil courts and in other governmental agencies is finessed by people who are trying to get by, like you, who have problems of their own and who are trying to do their best, sometimes with a lack of proper funding.

When it comes to social services, so called, need is always exceeded by a lack of resources devoted to meet the need. All too often that which destroys receives more resources than that which produces.

[bluestflame]

setting a dangerous legal precedent which could in potential be referenced back to " by the state" for more widespread, normalised " routine" legalised child abductions

[TigaHawk]

This is going to sound cruel and heartless but there should be heavy restrictions on who can breed and who cannot.

People like the one you've just outlined should be prohibited from breeding, perhaps even forcibly sterilized to prevent it.

The standards should be exceptionally high, focused on many factors including mental / personality types of the parents, how long have they been in a stable relationship, what are the reasons they want a child, how would they raise the child, what kind of environment would the child grow up in, and many other factors.

I would not even qualify to have one, and i'd happily take sterilization.


Too many children are born for the wrong reasons (The majority being oh **** i'm 30something all my mates are married and having kids i should do the same too right?) into extremely **** environments that they do not deserve. A child as an adult is EXACTLY the product of what they are raised to be and the environment they live in. If we could cut out all the **** and raise a new generation properly... oh how this world would change for the better.

[ThePythonicCow]

The standards should be exceptionally high
If there was some authority with sufficient power, that I trusted to make such decisions for the good of fellow humans, ... then I might (probably still not, but might) consider your proposal further to be worth further consideration.

I have no such trust in any such powerful authority, however. None.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

T

Too many children are born for the wrong reasons.

Respectfully,

No child is born for the wrong reasons. The universe does not make mistakes. Purpose may not be apparent, but every child is a miracle nonetheless.

[regnak]

If a child died in there care that is a red flag and the parents living in a van strike two. Okay strike three is meth addicts and no job or income strike four . I can go on.

Duty and care is real any of your points said to a judge , defence and prosecutors means no one will pick you for either side. But I say Paul knew or had a fair idea what they would think about his points which means you did not want to be king Solomon lol .