Best US Supreme Court Decision of 2012

In my view, the best U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2012 would probably be Miller v. Alabama.  This decision scored a big one for human rights of juveniles. There will be no more mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders.  This was a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court back in June of 2012.  The majority opinion was penned by former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan.  Of course, international human rights law was not the basis for the decision, but rather the US Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.  

I have previously blogged about the issue of locking up our children and throwing away the key - see here and here.

BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE Excerpt:

A divided US Supreme Court struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences Monday for juveniles convicted of murder, ruling the widespread practice violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. 

The ruling will nullify Massachusetts law, legal specialists said, and throw into question the sentences of 61 prisoners who over the past four decades were ordered to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Nationally, about 2,500 prisoners are serving life sentences without parole for murders they committed before turning 18. 

In a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that juvenile offenders younger than 18 have “diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform” and that judges should be able to consider the “mitigating qualities of youth” in sentencing, even when juveniles commit heinous crimes.

“Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. “Under these schemes, every juvenile will receive the same sentence as every other — the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one.”

It so far appears that Massachusetts has not moved quickly during the past half year since that SCOTUS decision to make the necessary corrections.   Let's hope our state will finally do so soon in 2013, and we'll thus complete one small but important step in furtherance of human rights rights here in our state.  


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Father Absence Affects Sons More than Daughters?

A new working paper  recently discussed in the Freakonomics blog, and which looks at the relationship between the absence of fathers from the home and juvenile delinquency, suggests that the presence of fathers, while beneficial for both sons and daughters, may be much more beneficial for sons than daughters.  The working paper finds, among other things, that "adolescent boys engage in more delinquent behavior if there is no father figure in their lives.  However, adolescent girls' behavior is largely independent of the presence (or absence) of their fathers."  

Of course, we should always view claims of findings from such social "science" reports with a healthy dose of skepticism.  A commenter on the Freakonomics blog named Todd makes the good point that this new study may be missing some important factors, especially as previous biological evidence shows father absence early in life may affect daughters by dramatically altering the age at which they get their first period. I would add that longitudinal studies in the United States and New Zealand have previously shown that father absence is strongly correlated with a higher risk for daughters of early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.

However differently father absence may affect daughters versus sons, what is clear is that father presence has positive effects and father absence has negative effects - that is the common denominator of all studies to date, including this latest one.  And while that may seem self-evident to most of us, it is not uniformly understood or believed due to the sad pervasiveness of men bashing in certain circles.

Father absence and its effects on children - both sons and daughters - should concern us all, as we have gone from a nation, here in the US, with 8 percent of children living in mother-only homes in 1960 to one with fully 23 percent living in such homes in 2010, according to the US Census bureau.  I hope more such studies will be done, and that more of us will pay attention to them and the issues they raise.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts Legislature Acts to Reform Child Abuse Laws, Prevention Measures, and Bureaucracy

Here's the best article I could find on the very important bill passed by the Massachusetts House and Senate on Tuesday, reforming child abuse laws and prevention within this state: Worcester Telegram and Gazette, by John Monahan: Child abuse protections approved/Legislature redefines laws, intervention. (It is interesting that when both the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram and Gazette - the New York Times-owned newspapers of our two biggest cities - run similar legal stories about a development in family law or crime, it is often the considerably smaller Worcester paper which has the more comprehensive and better article.)

The bill, which is expected to be signed by Governor Patrick, will among other things formally establish the Office of the Child Advocate in the governor's office (this office was actually already created by Governor Patrick by executive order as earlier discussed on this blog), give college benefits to children in foster care, and make many other changes designed to improve the Department of Social Services (DSS) - which the law will in fact rename "Department of Children and Families."

Unfortunately, as State Rep. James J. O’Day, himself a former DSS social worker, points out in the article (see the end of the excerpt below), the bill doesn't exactly put its money where its mouth is. The overburdened and often incompetent DSS will now be mandated, as the newly named DCF, to improve its performance, raise its standards, and do more work. But how exactly will that be possible if we do not also pay for more, and better, social workers to do the extra work? New rules and new methods of oversight can only do so much.

It's certainly hard to ask for more tax money for abused children, especially in a down economy, even here in Massachusetts. After all, it's been a long time since Bill Clinton declared that the era of Big Government is over. (And of course, the era of Big Government is indeed still over, at least for welfare and social services, though not for corporate welfare and federal war spending... but I digress.)

I am afraid this new law will prove far less effective than it promises to be, much like other unfunded, or underfunded mandates, such as No Child Left Behind. But I sincerely hope I am wrong about that.

EXCERPT FROM TELEGRAM AND GAZETTE ARTICLE, BY JOHN MONAHAN:

BOSTON— The Legislature yesterday adopted broad changes in child abuse laws and prevention measures, beefing up police and social worker intervention programs, requiring closer monitoring of child abuse cases and more certain investigation requirements in cases of injured children.

Perhaps the largest change calls for the establishment of a powerful new Office of the Child Advocate in the governor’s office, independent of the state Department of Social Services, whose name is being changed by the bill to the Department of Children and Families.

Sections of the bill require the independent advocate’s office to investigate all critical incidents, receive and investigate complaints, and staff a 24-hour hot line for children in foster care. It also grants the office subpoena power to acquire witness statements and documents needed in child abuse investigations from private nonprofit agencies.

The bill is a compromise between two versions approved earlier in the House and Senate; it was adopted on unanimous votes in both chambers and sent to the governor yesterday for his review.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said the bill followed up on findings from a House task force set up to investigate flaws in state child protection services and foster care, after revelations in the case of Haleigh Poutre, an 11-year-old foster child from Westfield.

In 2005, she was hospitalized in a coma from severe brain injuries allegedly suffered in beatings by a foster parent.

The bill would offer state assistance to pay not only tuition, but also college fees for state foster children and children adopted through the state Department of Families and Children, preventing an interruption of public services when they turn 18 as required under the existing system.

It also calls for social workers to have at least a bachelor’s degree and for supervisors to hold master’s degrees, and calls for police to investigate all cases of child injuries from the outset, and would bring police in to investigate situations that result in three child abuse complaints against a family.

Other provisions exempt information obtained by the Office of the Child Advocate from public records, and require more police training on handling minors when parents and guardians are arrested.

....

State Rep. James J. O’Day, D-West Boylston, a former DSS social worker, said while the bill improves child protection oversight and extends services past age 18 for foster children, it fails to invest in an expansion of the state’s social worker staff to provide better services and protective programs for children.

“This is not a panacea. There is always going to be, regrettably, child abuse,” he said.

“Oversight is oversight, but we need bodies out on the street dealing with families and helping families,” which is not accomplished in the bill, Mr. O’Day said.

“Without the workers to actually go out and do all the new work they are asked to do, it’s going to be an additional burden, to do more with less — the same old story,” Mr. O’Day said. “I would like to see more workers, more staffing, more services and the ability for workers to really do the work they are supposed to do with families. You can do that with 12 or 13 cases. You can’t do that with upwards of 22 cases.”

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts and New England Tops for Children

More evidence that Massachusetts, and its sister New England states, are great places for children has just been released by the Every Child Matters Education Fund. Susan Scully Petroni, editor of the Bay State Parent magazine, reports on the good news at the Bay State Parent Blog here. The full report itself: Geography Matters: Child Well-Being in the States.

Excerpt from the Bay State Parent Blog:

"Massachusetts is the second best state in the nation for U.S. children, based on a diverse set of 10 child well-being standards, including lack of access to prenatal care, premature deaths, malnutrition, poverty, child abuse and teen incarceration, according to a major new report released by the non-profit and non-partisan Every Child Matters Education Fund.

In revealing a nation that is starkly divided with what are often 'deadly differences' in how it treats its youths, the report shows 'geography matters' greatly when it comes to the ability of U.S. children to be healthy and survive to adulthood.

For example, children in the bottom of all the states are three times more likely to die before the age of 14; five times more likely to be uninsured; and eight times more likely to be incarcerated as teens.

The states with the best performance for children are (in order) Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, & Maine. In fact, all 6 New England states made the top 10, making it the best region in America for children....."

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

States Reconsidering Life Sentences for Juveniles

The U.S. is the only nation in the world imposing life sentences on children. A majority of U.S. states do incarcerate juveniles for life without parole, and we currently have nearly 2400 such juvenile offenders serving life sentences throughout the country.

It may come as a surprise to many that Massachusetts is one of those states in the majority. But the good news is there are people both here in Massachusetts and throughout the country working to stop this practice. The Christian Science Monitor last week ran the following article on the movement in many states around the country to reform or abolish these sentencing laws: States Reconsider Life Behind Bars For Youth - Christian Science Monitor, by Amanda Paulson .

Current prospects for abolition are not great, but this article does give some hope. I have previously argued for a ban of such sentences on human rights grounds and have discussed this issue in these previous posts: Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization and Massachusetts Youthful Offender Law Challenged in Worcester.

EXCERPTS FROM CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR ARTICLE:

Chicago - How should a society treat its youngest criminal offenders? And the families of victims of those offenders?

Half a dozen states are now weighing these questions anew, as they consider whether to ban life sentences for juveniles that don't include a option for parole – and whether those now serving such sentences should have a retroactive shot at parole.

Here in Illinois, proposed legislation would give 103 people – most convicted of unusually brutal crimes – a chance at parole hearings, while outlawing the sentence for future young perpetrators.

The proposal has victims' families up in arms, angry that killers they had been told were in prison for life might be given a shot at release and that they'd need to regularly attend hearings in the future, reliving old traumas, to try to ensure that these criminals remain behind bars.

Advocates of legislation, meanwhile, both in Illinois and elsewhere, note that the US is the only country in the world with anyone – nearly 2,400 across the nation – serving such a severe sentence for a crime committed as a juvenile. They criticize the fact that the sentence is often mandatory, part of a system devoid of leniency for a teenager's lack of judgment, or hope that youth can be reformed.

....

The current legislation in Illinois is unlikely to go anywhere, with its key sponsor backing away last week and saying more time is needed to dialogue with victims. Reform advocates hope to have new legislation introduced in the near future. Colorado outlawed juvenile life without parole in 2006, and legislation is pending in Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and California, while a few other states are experiencing grass-roots efforts.

Some activists against the sentence say they hope they can work with victims' families to take their concerns into account even as they do away with the sentence. In Michigan, where a set of bills is before both the Senate and the House, activists have had some success building dialogue with victims, says Deborah LaBelle, a human rights attorney based in Ann Arbor and director of the ACLU's Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative.

"We need to allow both voices to be heard," says Ms. LaBelle. But she feels strongly that the sentence is inappropriate for youth. "As every parent knows and as every social scientist understands, this is a time of ill-thought-out, impulsive lack of judgment, problematic years… To throw them away and say you're irredeemable as a child is a disturbing social concept."

For information and links related to Massachusetts criminal law see the criminal defense page of my law firm website.

Governor Patrick Makes First Good Move Toward CORI Reform

Governor Patrick has now decided what to do with CORI reform, as indicated in this press release issued yesterday by the Governor's office. He has filed legislation, which of course has to be acted upon, but has also implemented some changes through executive order. The best article I've seen on this so far is from the Worcester Telegram: CORI Reforms Bill Filed; Changes to Help Ex-Cons Get Jobs, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, by John J. Monahan, January 12, 2008.

The Boston Globe also published yesterday a column by Adrian Walker, who, while praising the Governor for this effort, pointed out both that on the one hand this is a rather timid reform, and on the other, that it may not even be passed by the legislature.

The Walker piece discussed Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Roxbury, who is one of those who believes the reform measure does not go far enough. "She has argued that juvenile records should be inaccessible but aren't," explains Walker. "She also maintained that the proposal does not go to the heart of the issue, which is that people with criminal records have trouble finding work and rebuilding their lives."

And then I think Senator Wilkerson hit the nail on the head when she said, as quoted in the editorial: "I think those people who have difficulty finding work because of CORI are not going to have much relief after the release of the governor's plan, and that to me is the most unfortunate part of it. The only real test is whether last year's no becomes this year's yes."

Although this CORI reform is welcome news, there are some things CORI reform advocates had hoped for, but which are not in the executive order and legislation. The Blue Mass Group Blog has a post and some good accompanying comments on some of the gripes of the reformers, a few of the biggies being that this reform will not clean up the records themselves - records which in many cases contain way too much information, and are inaccurate, inconsistent, and misleading - and also, as indicated by Senator Wilkerson, there is no change in the handling of juvenile records.

It seems the Governor took the cautious approach that the Worcester Telegram advocated some time ago, a cautious approach which I feared and which I spoke out against in this blog.

Too bad. This just means still more reform will be needed later on or else we will continue to live with absurd problems, including more, and unnecessary, government expenses for taxpayers, as we continue to create impossible dilemmas for those lowest on the economic ladder in this state.

Opponents of CORI reform should realize that this reform is about people who are already out of jail. We can't lock everybody up and punish them forever. They are out here. So now what do we want them to do? Enabling these people to get to work, get housing, and otherwise move on with their lives will reduce the rates of recidivism and welfare dependency.

But hats off, Governor Patrick, for having the courage at least to make this very good first step in the right direction. Let's hope our legislature has the decency, intelligence and courage to enact the legislation, and follow up with even stronger reforms later on.

For a good explanation of CORI, see CORI Project - Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Inc., where you can find the "CORI Reader" - a very instructive article on CORI in a pdf file.

TELEGRAM ARTICLE EXCERPT:

"BOSTON— Gov. Deval L. Patrick filed legislation yesterday that would reduce the time the public could view most criminal records — from 15 years to 10 years for felonies and from 10 years to 5 years for misdemeanors — to make it easier for past offenders to get jobs and to reduce prison recidivism.

The changes are among numerous proposed reforms to the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information law laid out by the governor after a year of study.

'CORI was never intended to turn every offense into a life sentence,' the governor said in a statement announcing the initiative. 'All but a handful of people incarcerated are eventually released, and they need to get back to work.'

While the change in the length of time before records are sealed and some other changes would require legislative approval, several changes were implemented by the governor by executive order yesterday.

The legislation also would increase access to sealed criminal records for police and criminal justice agencies, granting them access to all criminal records sealed by the courts, and would impose a new penalty of $5,000 or one year in prison for those convicted of making unauthorized requests, unauthorized use or dissemination of CORI records.

Handling of juvenile records would not change under the legislation.

Meanwhile, the governor directed state agencies to implement several other changes in the handling of criminal records...."

For information and links related to Massachusetts criminal law see the criminal defense page of my law firm website.

Governor Patrick Issues Executive Order Creating Watchdog Child Advocate Office

Gov. Patrick is to create an Office of the Child Advocate that will track cases of child abuse and neglect, and that will oversee the Department of Social Services, Department of Youth Services, and other agencies with responsibilities relating to children. This is a good idea, especially given the problems we have had with the performance of our state agencies. Such oversight authorities have already been set up in some other states. There is justified hope that this new office may improve the competence and effectiveness of our state agencies. See today's Boston Globe article on this news by Andrea Estes: Patrick order will create watchdog child advocate office - The Boston Globe, December 20, 2007, by Andrea Estes

"Governor Deval Patrick today will create the state's first Office of the Child Advocate, a watchdog with power to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect and to monitor state agencies that provide services to children, state officials said yesterday.

The office will not have the broad powers of child advocates in some other states, who can issue subpoenas, hold public hearings, and even sue state agencies.

Nonetheless, Massachusetts child welfare advocates said it was an important move after a spate of high-profile abuse and neglect cases in recent years.

'Finally,' said MaryLou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. 'You need someone who can ask tough questions and has the backing of the governor. The office of child advocate is in response to a series of tragedies and legislative oversight hearings. There's no question about it.'

The state agency that handles foster care, the Department of Social Services, has come under fire for several high-profile tragedies in recent years. In 2005, 4-year-old Dontel Jeffers died at the hands of his foster mother. Haleigh Poutre was left comatose in 2005 after a beating by her adoptive mother, who was under DSS supervision. And 4-year-old Rebecca Riley of Hull died after being given an overdose of psychotropic medications in 2006 by her parents, who had been monitored by DSS...."

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts Youthful Offender Law Challenged in Worcester

The Massachusetts "Youthful Offender Law," passed in 1996, under which children between the ages of 14 and 17 charged with first or second degree murder are automatically tried as adults in Superior Court and face the same sentences as adults, including mandatory life in prison without parole for first degree murder, is being challenged as violative of the US and state constitutions in Worcester Superior Court in a case involving a 16-year-old recently charged with murder in the first degree. The law is being challenged, according to the article in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette (Worcester Telegram & Gazette News: "Adult trial law challenged/ Milford teen faces life sentence in fatal stabbing By Gary V. Murray TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF gmurray@telegram.com") , as violative of constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and on due process grounds.

As mentioned in my recent post Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization, there is also international human rights law support available to challenge such laws. Unfortunately, state and federal courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court often do not show the appropriate respect for, or even attention to, international law. But I say pile it on. This looks to be an interesting challenge to a bad law, one that in my opinion is violative of human rights law and of US and state constitutional law.

"WORCESTER— Lawyers for a Milford teenager charged in a fatal stabbing are challenging the constitutionality of a state law requiring that juvenile murder suspects between the ages of 14 and 17 be tried as adults. Lawyers John G. Swomley and Kenneth J. King, who represent Patrick I. Powell, contend in a motion to dismiss the murder charge pending against Mr. Powell in Worcester Superior Court that subjecting their client to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment if he is convicted would expose him to cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions and deny him due process. Mr. Powell was 16 when he was charged with murder in the Jan. 6, 2006, stabbing death of 21-year-old Daniel Columbo during an altercation outside Mr. Columbo’s home at 26 Carroll St. in Milford. Mr. Columbo died as a result of a stab wound to the chest allegedly inflicted by Mr. Powell.....
....

Mr. Swomley, who was appointed to represent Mr. Powell, now 18, and Mr. King, who is affiliated with the Suffolk University Law School’s Juvenile Justice Center, argue in their motion to dismiss that a juvenile offender is less culpable than an adult who engages in similar misconduct because of 'psychological and cognitive immaturity.'

'Recent advances in neuroscience explain that a juvenile’s lack of impulse control, inability to consider consequences of actions or foresee alternative courses of action and propensity to take risks that an adult would not take are products of the juvenile’s incomplete cognitive development,' according to their motion. Mr. Swomley and Mr. King are seeking to introduce expert testimony at a Jan. 16 hearing on their motion, contending 'that when a juvenile’s incomplete development is understood, it becomes apparent that juveniles are sufficiently different from adults that they cannot constitutionally be subjected to the same mandatory penalties as adults. That is, a life without parole sentence implies a determination that a juvenile offender is as culpable as an adult who commits similar acts and is irredeemable. Evidence from neuroscience demonstrates that neither premise can withstand scrutiny,' the lawyers wrote."

Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization

In handling a very sad case in court today (a case I am sure I "won" but which brought no joy or triumph), I had a bright moment early on when I had the opportunity to speak at some length with a wonderful psychologist who works regularly with children, and spends a lot of time in juvenile court trying to help children to recover and to rebound from truly horrific circumstances. The optimism of this wonderful man cheered me up somewhat. When I complained about how depressing the juvenile cases often are, he told me he rather enjoys his role in helping to protect these children in court, and nurture these children through therapy.

DEADLY DELINQUENTS

It is easy for most of us to forget that just as children are resilient as victims, they also are capable of redemption and rehabilitation as offenders. If they can overcome the trauma of abuse, and other horrible experiences, and go on nonetheless to lead healthy adult lives, as so many do, they can also redeem themselves and be rehabilitated, even when they themselves have committed horrific acts. But we are all too quick to demonize and discard them just as we do adult perpetrators.

In some circumstances, for example when children engage in inappropriate sexual contact with other children, contact that would be considered abuse if initiated by older individuals, we don't actually label these child actors "perpetrators" but instead treat all the children in the situation, both the actors and the acted upon, as the unfortunate "victims." But there is a line that can't be crossed, it seems. If a child's crime is too horrific, these days we just give up on the child, forever, and lock him up and throw away the key, just as we would do with an adult perpetrator of such a crime. Our favorite way to rationalize this approach is to pretend that the child is actually an adult.

There recently appeared an excellent article by Sherry Colb, in a Findlaw Column on October 29, 2007, exploring the question of why we are now so quick to lock children up and throw away the key: Why Does the U.S. Sentence Adolescents To Life Without Parole? As Colb points out in her article, we did not always have this harsh approach, and our attitude seems somewhat dissonant with our basic sense of optimism. She postulates that we are somehow afraid of our own optimism, and lock up the children out of a sense of fear of that optimism. I am not exactly sure I agree with this theory, if I even understand it correctly, but it may be right. But I think there may be a simpler explanation for our harsh policy toward deadly delinquents. It is in our entire criminal justice system, that is, in our system for actual adults (not just the adolescents whom we selectively and inconsistently treat as adults), that we have become less forgiving, more punitive, and more willing to give up on people. Demonize. Discard.

I'm not sure that we should blame our harsh penal approach on any fear of our own optimism. I think there is something more distasteful at work here. It is fear, Colb is right, but it is a kind of fear that is making us lose our humanity. The U.S., in permitting its states to lock up children for life without parole (and Massachusetts is one among the vast majority of US states that presently do this), is quite arguably in violation of international human rights law. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court finally outlawed, in Roper v. Simmons, capital punishment for juvenile offenders, but that hardly brings the U.S. in compliance with human rights law, as I understand it.

Colb in her article provides a history of the developments in international law on the specific issue of life without parole for children. For more information about the issues of juvenile justice and human rights law, see the Human Rights Watch report of 2005 http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/. We have moved away from state-sanctioned killing of juvenile offenders, but we are still guilty of a lesser international human rights law violation by locking up children and throwing away the key. That is because we let our anger cloud our minds and we allow ourselves to demonize these children. We inevitably lose some of our own humanity when we do so. (Just as we do when we lock up "enemy combatants" as we did in Guantanamo. Just as we do when we commit acts of torture....but I digress.)

DEADBEAT DADS

I have witnessed a lack of humanity in many prosecutors, who often find it easiest to view perpetrators, of whatever age, as purely evil, subhuman creatures for whom no punishment is too great. This inhumane, simplistic prosecutorial attitude was bizarrely evident in a recent guest article, on October 13, 2007, in the Washington Post by Wisconsin "deadbeat dad" prosecutor Mary Wagner - LINK to Washington Post article, Mary T. Wagner - Corralling Deadbeat Dads - washingtonpost.com, which is a tale about her experience prosecuting deadbeat dads.

Wagner seems to take delight in demonizing and punishing these men (I say men because we do not hear about the prosecution of any deadbeat moms in this article), and appears to lose all perspective. Particularly troubling for me was the following passage:

"The case is never about whether the deadbeat dad failed to make any payments for 120 consecutive days, earning himself up to a year and a half of 'maximum confinement' in prison and two additional years of 'extended supervision' reporting to a probation agent. It's about how the parent who stayed with the children had to work two jobs, never caught a break and sometimes had to take government assistance, and how the kids in the middle of it all felt abandoned -- how their world fell apart when Dad left.

Sometimes it's about a 10-year-old child coming to court with Mom, smiling but nervous with anticipation, wondering if the father who's been gone for years will recognize her in the gallery as he sits on a bench up front, wearing an orange jumpsuit and chains, waiting for our dance to begin. Those scenes never end well...."

It is terrible, Wagner says, that this dad has not paid child support. Yes, absolutely. But why not object to the sad fact that this child has been brought into the courtroom to witness her father in an orange jump suit and chains. The child, despite the child support arrears, apparently was fed and clothed while sitting in court, but how was that child feeling? It is horrible that the father doesn't know this child, agreed. But is it not also horrible that this mother brought her child into court to see her father in this circumstance? Have we all been desensitized by Jerry Springer?

I'm bothered that while Wagner can so easily demonize this dad, and discard him as a useless, evil deadbeat, there is not even the hint of the possibility that he might be worthy of some respect, and that after he finally gets out of jail, he might actually pay child support and even spend some time with his child.

There is a strong correlation between the payment of support by noncustodial parents and the degree of contact they have with their children. If we're really concerned about both support and parenting time, about the best interests of children, we should have a broader perspective. Sometimes there are deadbeat dads, and deadbeat moms as well, and sometimes they truly are demonic. Sometimes they never come around. But parents, and prosecutors, and judges, should always leave room for redemption, at least as long as these children are still children.

I'm reminded of a wonderful adult-like line of Lisa Simpson on an episode of the Simpsons, when her Aunt Patty was criticizing Homer in front of Lisa and Aunt Patty admitted she was "just trashing your father."

"I wish you wouldn't," said Lisa, "because aside from the fact that he has the same frailties of all human beings, he is my only model of manhood, and my estimation of him will govern the prospects of my adult relationships. So I hope you bear in mind that any knock at him is a knock at me, and I'm far too young to defend myself against such onslaughts."

Well said, Lisa.