Death of a Baby---Part 2It was almost exactly a year ago, September 10, 2005, that I first wrote about this awful case here in Tucson. A 16 month-old foster child, Emily Mays, was brought to one of our local hospitals with serious brain trauma. A good portion of the child's brain was already dead, and the entire brain had shifted in the skill from the excessive force caused by what the doctors termed was "blunt force trauma." The foster parents, Penny and Randall West, were immediately suspected of injuring the child. By the end of the day, after the doctors had determined that there was nothing that could be done to save her, little Emily was taken off life support and died within the hour.Child Protective Services removed the other foster children in the home, as well as the biological children of the West's. Mr. and Mrs. West immediately "lawyered up", and fought the dependency matter involving the removal of their own biological children vigorously in Juvenile Court. A juvenile court judge determined that the biological children were in no danger, and ordered them to be returned to the West's approximately a month later. The juvenile court case was eventually dismissed (one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made) and, through it all, there were no criminal charges brought.For the last year, the West's have gone about their business, believing that the matter was over, and thinking in the darkest recesses of their minds that they had indeed gotten away with murder. Yesterday, the Pima County Attorney's Office finally brought charges against them, indicting each of them on one count of felony child abuse. They each face between 17-27 years in prison.For me, who lived the case 24/7 for months, and had to reluctantly dismiss the juvenile court matter, it's the old good news/bad news. I'm ecstatic that the County Attorney's Office finally got their shit together and brought serious charges against these two people, and that they are facing real prison time, which in Arizona, under the Dangerous Crimes against Children statute, means day for day hard time, no good time or any other reduction in sentence. On the other hand, I am disappointed that the charges are not more serious, i.e., some form of murder charge. After all, one (or both) of them did kill little Emily. Still, just being indicted is the first step on the road to some measure of justice for little Emily. Hopefully, convictions will soon follow.posted by David Braun @ 8:21 AM 0 comments
Please put this on your page and repost
.. Justice for Emily( In Memory of Emily A. Mays )
So what made you take her away,
from family and friends on that day,deciding that a strangers handwas indeed a better plan.And who was this you trusted dear,to provide a home much better then here,for fifteen months we kept her safe,in less then one you sealed her fate .So now I wonder how could this be?No Justice yet for Emily!I have to ask who is to blame,as you continue to play this red tape game,the facts they point a certain way,of the violent events that happened that day.Now a child is lying dead,from battery upon her head,scrapes and bruises were also found,and in that month she lost twelve pounds.So again wonder how could this be?No Justice yet for Emily!The coroners claim was Homicide,the police have said theyre on our side,and still to date not one arrest,yet all do say theyre doing their best.Lets join together and raise our voice,in the name of this girl who had no choice,
I say its time for those to pay,
for this precious life they took away.I truly hope one day well see
True Justice done for Emily!
..
imikimi - Customize Your World
MyHotComments / HotFreeLayouts
imikimiIn real life children are kill daily by the hand of people that are suppose to take care of them. Like my niece who was put into foster care in Arizona by CPS. She lost 12 lbs in less then the one month she was there. Than she took a blunt force blow to her head that killed her. We the people need to stand up for these babies who now have no VOICE! This Doesn't just Happen in the movies ! ..
Lawmakers eye reforms at CPS againAmanda J. Crawford The Arizona Republic Apr. 9, 2006 12:00 AMLess than three years after a special legislative session targeting reforms within Child Protective Services, lawmakers again are looking to make changes at the agency.CPS and child advocates warn they could lead to more children being left in dangerous situations.A bill that passed the Senate and is making its way through the House would make it more difficult for CPS to remove children from their homes. Supporters say the bill is needed to bring accountability to the agency, but CPS warns it would put barriers in the way of caseworkers trying to protect children. advertisementIf passed, the measure is unlikely to be signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano, who made the fall 2003 special session reforms at CPS a cornerstone of her first year in office.But the measure shows the deep divide that still exists among state lawmakers over CPS' performance and how to strike the right balance between protecting children and preserving families.The special session was spurred by several highly publicized deaths of children with whom CPS had had previous contact. In response, Napolitano ordered the agency to investigate every charge of abuse and to make child safety the guiding priority, rather than family preservation. As a result, child removals soared.Now, sponsors of Senate Bill 1430, mostly from the Republican Party's most conservative wing, say that the agency is removing too many children from their homes under Napolitano's mandate. They say CPS needs to be held to higher standards and be able to prove allegations before dividing families."We still have a system that in some cases is doing more harm than good," said the bill's co-sponsor Rep. Laura Knaperek, who has been highly critical of the agency and the reforms pushed by Napolitano. She was part of a joint legislative committee last summer that heard weeks of testimony from families critical of CPS.If this bill becomes law, CPS is "going to have to go to court, have all their eggs in a row, and they are going to have to tell the whole truth, not part of it," she said.Higher standard The bill would raise the burden of proof needed before CPS keeps a child in state custody or moves to sever a parent's relationship with the child and put the child up for adoption.The agency would be required to show "clear and convincing" evidence of abuse or neglect to keep a child in state care and would need to have proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" before parental rights are terminated. That is the same as the federal standard used for Indian tribes but higher than that required by the U.S. Supreme Court or used by any other state in the nation. The state is now required to show a "preponderance of evidence" to place a child in state custody and "clear and convincing" evidence for parental rights to be terminated.The bill would also require the agency to notify parents before removing a child from home or school. And it would establish an independent office to advocate on behalf of families involved with CPS.CPS spokeswoman Liz Barker said raising the burden of proof would result in caseworkers spending "more time gathering evidence than working with families" to provide services and support to make the home safe for children. And the requirement that caseworkers make all "reasonable" efforts to notify parents before picking up a child could "give parents the opportunity to coach the child or flee," potentially compromising CPS and law-enforcement investigations and leaving children in dangerous situations. Now, the agency must notify parents within six hours after taking a child into custody.But Sen. Karen Johnson, who introduced the bill, said CPS caseworkers have too much power in the current system, power she believes is abused by "bad apple" caseworkers."We have caseworkers, supervisors, others that are embellishing cases," she said. "They are actually lying, they have prejudices. . . . Some of these caseworkers get on power trips."That's a sentiment echoed by Robin Scoins of Peoria, who says she has worked with hundreds of families involved with CPS through her organization, Arizona Family Rights Advocacy Institute. She insists that in most of those cases parents were innocent of the allegations or went through all the steps needed to get their children back and still couldn't.Scoins had her son taken away from her for nine months shortly after his birth in 2002. She is suing in federal court, claiming that CPS misread a drug test and accused her of being on methamphetamines when she was really on prescription cold medicine."I think (the bill) would definitely solve some of the problems, and it would bring accountability to the agency," she said.Rep. Pete Hershberger, R-Tucson, the moderate Republican who is chairman of the House Human Services committee, strongly opposes SB 1430, which he said is rooted in "a philosophy that government should not be involved in families.""This is not an agency rife with corruption and deceit," said Hershberger, who also sat through last summer's legislative hearings. "CPS is doing the right things. . . . We need to have protection in place for families, but we need to be able to have kids removed who need to be."Families disrupted Supporters of the measure point to the fact that the number of children removed from their homes has soared since the special-session reforms. The same statistics have also been used by CPS to show improvements in protecting children.According to the most recent child welfare report from the agency, removals spiked 40 percent to 4,078 between April 2005 and September 2005 from 2,961 between October 2002 and March 2003 This has left nearly 10,000 children in foster care or shelters, up from about 7,000 before the special session.Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, which advocates for fewer child removals nationwide, points to these numbers to show that Arizona has been consumed by a "foster care panic" in recent years."Are there children being needlessly taken from their homes? Definitely," Wexler said. "And children are not any safer."But CPS officials contend they are doing a better job both of protecting children and working to keep families together when possible. They are investigating 5,000 more cases of abuse each year, and the number of families receiving counseling and other services without losing their children has also grown significantly to 11,500 in July 2005 from 8,512 in July 2003. CPS has also found more foster homes and is placing more children with family members."CPS caseworkers take their job protecting children very seriously," Barker said. "They use their tools, training and experience to make some very hard decisions for children."Layers of bureaucracy Carol Kamin of Children Action's Alliance says she has seen no evidence to show that CPS caseworkers remove children they shouldn't.Kamin calls the measure "a terrible bill" that will add layers of bureaucracy to an agency that already has several layers of oversight in place.She warns that it could leave children in abusive situations or, once in state custody, leave them wallowing in foster care or shelters because they cannot be placed in permanent adoptive homes until parental rights are terminated.She also points out that CPS does not make its decisions in a vacuum: Courts make the final decisions.And she fears that the measure would undo reforms at the agency instituted during the 2003 special session."In the past two or three years the state has made an extraordinary effort to take a hard look at the system, the resources available and have it work for kids," said Kamin, whose organization was a driving force behind the special session. "What this legislation does is create more barriers for a system that is trying to reform itself."
By Alexis Huicochea arizona daily star Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.27.2005 advertisement An autopsy conducted Friday on a 16-month-old girl who died while in foster care Wednesday did not reveal the cause of death, police said. Additional tests will be conducted and the results will not be available for at least 10 business days, said Officer Lisa Peasley, a Tucson Police Department spokeswoman. Police hope the autopsy will determine when Emily Mays suffered the nonaccidental injuries that sent her to Tucson Medical Center on Wednesday. Emily's family would also like answers, according to Thea M. Gilbert, the attorney representing Emily's mother, Katherine Mays, in the dependency case. "The family is waiting for the autopsy results to determine what happened to this little girl," she said. "They are all in tears over this." Emily and her two sisters, who are 4 years old and 1 month old, were taken from Katherine Mays in late July, Gilbert said. She would not say why. The three were placed in the foster home, which police have said is on the Southeast Side. However, the foster parents asked that the 4-year-old be removed about a week ago, Gilbert said. On Wednesday, Emily was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital at 7 a.m. and later transferred to TMC, she said. When the Tucson Police Department was called to TMC around noon by Child Protective Services, Emily was in surgery, according to police. Medical personnel told detectives that her injuries were not accidental. Meanwhile, CPS was attempting to notify Katherine Mays, 33, that Emily was in the hospital, Gilbert said. They had gone to the home of Emily's grandmother, where her mother lives, but she was not home. The CPS worker could have told the grandmother that Emily was hospitalized, but she did not, telling her only that there was "a situation," Gilbert said. It was not until the fourth trip made to the home when Katherine Mays finally arrived home and they were told at 4:30, she said. Katherine Mays and her mother arrived at TMC around 5 p.m. and at 8:25, Mays decided to take Emily off of life support, Gilbert said. Mays last saw Emily on Tuesday, during one of two supervised visits she is given each week, Gilbert said. She reported to the visit supervisor that Emily had a bruise that was healing on her forehead, but they did not believe that was related to her death. She visited with her other two daughters Friday, but she could not bring herself to tell the 4-year-old, who is now in group care, that Emily died when she asked, "Where's my sister?" Gilbert said. The 1-month old baby was removed from the foster family's care, but Mays has not been told where she was placed, Gilbert said. No one has been arrested in connection with Emily's death, which is being investigated as a homicide. On Wednesday, Mays will go to court to see if she can get her two daughters back or if they can be placed with family, Gilbert said. CPS and Tucson police would not release information about the foster family. Contact reporter Alexis Huicochea at 629-9412 or [email protected]: Break In Baby Case Dec 24, 2005 01:05 PM PST Mark Stine KOLD News 13 Reporter Posted: 12-8-05 Pictures and memories of Emily Mays are all her family has left. Emily's great aunt, Charlotte Stacker, told KOLD, "It's been very hard, the mother's not handling it very well at all." They've been trying to cope with the loss of Emily for more than three months. "There should be an arrest by now and this should be going to trial because that was just a baby and she was innocent," Stacker said. Sergeant Ramon Batista said, "Emily Mays has been re-classified as a homicide and its still under investigation." The family attorney, Thea Gilbert said, "We have no idea why Emily's case took so long at the coroners office to get those answers and we still don't have any of those answers." Still, no one is charged with Emily's murder. Stacker told us, "I think Emily's killer is the people where she lived, so why are they looking? Who else could it be?" "Autopsy reports show the child died of blunt force trauma," Batista said. But the family says Emily's mom didn't get this information from police. "She wants to know why the police didn't tell her this before, it was on the news. She should be the first to know everything, her and her father," Stacker said. "We've had a very difficult time getting information from Child Protective Services. Nobody tells us anything really, we're the last to know," Gilbert told KOLD. The family claims there were signs Emily was not in good hands. "Emily lost 12 pounds in less than a month. Now you know something isn't right if a baby loses 12 pounds in less than a month." In a picture taken at a supervised visit with Emily's mom, three weeks after going into foster care, the family noticed a bruise over Emily's eye. They say the foster parents claim Emily fell and bumped her head. "Emily wasn't hurt here. Emily was a happy child here and so were her brothers and sisters. Emily was hurt where she was staying," Stacker said. The family and their lawyer just want justice for this innocent 16-month-old. "To not have a resolution, to not have an answer, I think, continues putting all kids in foster care at risk," Gilbert said. "We just want justice. We'll never get over it, but at least we'll have a bit more peace within ourselves," Stacker told KOLD News 13. It could be up to two weeks before we know what killed a Tucson toddler. An autopsy is scheduled for 16-month-old Emily Mays, who died Wednesday afternoon. Sergeant Mark Robinson said, "At about noon, our Child Dependent Unit detectives got a call from CPS, they were at TMC." Emily had suffered life threatening injuries. She was taken into surgery and then put on life support. "After surgery the doctors indicated to the detectives, they did not believe the injuries were accidental," Robinson said. Emily's birth mother says, Emily and her two other children were put in foster care less than a month ago. She says authorities tell her Emily died from blunt force trauma. "Unfortunately, about 8:30 last night, the child passed away," Robinson said. Tucson Police Detectives aren't sure when Emily suffered these injuries and they're waiting for autopsy results to find out where they need to take their investigation. "When the autopsy comes out and we find out how old these injuries were, that will focus the investigation a little bit more," Robinson said.