A week or so later Mary's corrections
officer, social worker, and guardian ad litem all hopped in a car and
drove all the way up to North Homes to visit Mary. They always traveled together,
and it made me wonder how the GAL maintained any degree of
objectivity regarding Mary's case, or regarding me, after spending so
much time with people who had anything but objectivity about Mary's
case, or about me. Of course, he didn't pretend to be objective so I
guess that wasn't a problem. But maybe I was just a little envious,
since he had spent only about 20 minutes, at best, talking to me, and
was now on a ten-hour ride to North Homes with Mary's workers —
people who automatically rejected every idea I had regarding what I
thought was best for my daughter.
After they returned home, they emailed the team to let us know how their visit with Mary went. They said that when they first arrived, Mary was upset with how things were going with her case and that she didn't feel like talking to them. I guess they didn't like this attitude of hers, and so they spent part of their time trying to get her to come around. Their words.
They were somehow able to do this and were finally able to have their talk with her. But they never did say how they got her to come around, and that made me start wondering about things I had good reason to wonder about, like… could they have said anything about me? Could they, maybe, have told her I wasn't a good parent?
Why would I think something like this, you might say?
Because that's exactly what they did. When I called Mary later that evening, she told me about it:
"Dad, my corrections officer,
social worker, and guardian ad litem visited me today and they told me that I
shouldn't listen to you and anything you say to me. They told me you aren't a good
parent and that you don't know what's right for me."
Absolutely true. Even Mary knew this was wrong. And she doesn't lie.
And so the poisoning began.
But they didn't stop there. They wanted
to make sure if I did say something to Mary they'd know what
it was. And so, before they left for home that day, they instructed
the staff at North Homes to start monitoring Mary's phone calls
between her and her parents (meaning between her and me) and listen for anything that ... might not be right? Who knows.
The next time I called North Homes to
talk to Mary, I was put through to her unit and a staff person
intercepted my call. She told me she would be listening in on my
conversation with Mary. I didn't know what was going on and I asked
her why she was going to listen in on my phone calls with my
daughter. She was surprised I didn't know about this and told me that
Mary's workers had requested that all phone calls between her
parents and her be monitored — not phone calls between Mary and
anyone else.
I told Mary's lawyer about this, too,
and she became furious. She emailed the team, again, upset that she
was never informed about any of this, and she told Mary's workers to stop
this phone monitoring because it was a violation of Mary's
rights. Mary's workers replied that they weren't going to stop listening in on her phone calls because they felt Mary was "misinterpreting" information
she was getting from her parents (meaning me) and this way the staff
listening in could tell Mary (meaning her corrections officer and social worker) what was being
said.
Despite Mary's lawyer's repeated
requests to get her workers to stop monitoring her phone calls, they
refused, and she had no choice but to schedule another court
hearing, tie up more county time, and ask the judge to force Mary's
workers to comply with the law. The judge agreed and the monitoring stopped.
1 comments:
National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics
Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Requirements and Guidelines
Post a Comment