Anonymous Tip: Judge Romer’s Ruling

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 168-170

Here it is . . . the moment you’ve all been waiting for. Today you get to find out Judge Romer’s decision. But first, a moment of travelogue:

Peter, Gwen, and her parents knew they couldn’t eat until the decision was announced. . . .

Peter suggested the four of them go for a walk in Riverfront Park. They all agreed. They walked to Peter’s car, drove five blocks, and got out on the north side of the park. Gwen was holding tightly to her father’s arm. June Mansfield walked alongside Peter.

Yay Spokane geography! (For those not reading the comments, Farris’s frequent ‘travelogue’ of Spokane has become a bit of a thing there, completely with Spokane natives explaining the significance of each mentioned location.)

Also, look, June gets more lines!

“You did a very good job,” Mrs. Mansfield said to Peter.

“Thank you, ma’am. You’ve got a great daughter and granddaughter. They’re pretty easy to defend.”

“I like to think they’re pretty great. But you were so much better than the last lawyer.”

“The proof is in the pudding. We will find out at one,” Peter said with a shiver. He was as nervous as he had ever been about any decision.

“You do think we’ll win, don’t you?”

“I know that we should win,” Peter said. Gwen and Stan were both listening intently as well. “And that’s my best judgement, looking at the evidence as objectively as I can. But you really never can tell.”

Note that Peter calls June “ma’am,” thereby cementing his position as Honorable Eligible Bachelor. I mean look how old fashioned and respectful he is?! Although actually I’m curious, I know the use of “ma’am” is more common in the South, does that carry over to the Northwest Pacific area too? Or is this as out of place as it feels?

Anyway, Peter goes on to explain to June that he’s thought he won when he lost, and vice versa. Stan asks how he can stand such a “crazy profession,” and Peter says that “if good people who don’t believe the right thing aren’t in the system trying, the evil side will win every time.” I think Farris got some of his negatives off there.

Anyway, then Peter says:

“There I go again. Explaining everything in terms of good and evil. I try not to do it, but in this case it seems so applicable. Except for the police officer, I just couldn’t stand all the people on the other side.”

“I hate ’em,” Gwen said without a smile.

Stan patted his daughter on the shoulder. “We’ll deal with that when you get Casey back.”

Can I just say that Gwen does not seem to be processing this well at all? But also, I honestly think this little excerpt explains so much of what I find problematic about this book—it’s all about good versus evil. There’s no nuance. Well, there is nuance—Gwen needs help pretty badly, and is far from a perfect mother—but Farris doesn’t seem to think there is.

As many of my readers have noted, this book would be far more frightening as a work of propaganda if the CPS workers were portrayed as well-meaning and the system itself were condemned—in other words, if the book were able to show that the system can cause well-meaning CPS workers to remove children form perfectly good homes without correction, because the system is that badly broken. A bad system that subverts good people is far, far scarier than bad people subverting a good system.

There’s also the fact that the “bad guys” in this story are really, really bad at being bad guys. Blackburn gave Dr. McGuire bribe money that McGuire should never have taken—a $2,000 bribe would be too much risk to be worth it for a professional practicing psychologist. McGuire actually worried that he had written down information about that transaction in Gwen’s file. Worse, Blackburn gave Dr. McGuire the money in public, at a bar where they and their cars stood out as out of place. And then there’s the fact that Donna and Rita didn’t make sure to collude on their description of the nonexistent bruises.

So not only do we not get a story of the system chewing up good people, we don’t even get a story of competent bad guys subverting the system. Instead we get bumbling incompetent bad guys who only won the first hearing because Gwen’s lawyer was terribly, terribly bad. And even the people who are supposed to be sort-of neutral and definitely competent—like Gail and Judge Romer—bumbled incomprehensibly by failing to even ask about the existence of a father before or during the first hearing.

And then there’s the fact that the supposed “good guy” is willing to resort to blackmail and behaves inappropriately around his client. As my readers have pointed out, Peter ought to be laying the options before Gwen and letting her choose which strategy she likes. Instead, he’s doing all the choosing and merely telling Gwen what to do. For instance, he ought to have at least told Gwen that she could plead guilty to the bruises and that he could then argue that it would be in Casey’s best interests to be returned home immediately, with mandated parenting classes and counseling for Gwen and occasional CPS check-ins. I doubt Gwen would have chosen this option, but Gwen should have at least known it was an option.

And did I mention the blackmail? Peter should be disbarred for that alone. For those who may not remember, what happened was this: Peter met Gwen in the parking lot immediately after Bill Walinski, her former lawyer, had made a move on her. Peter spoke with Gwen and offered to take over as her lawyer, and she agreed. Peter called Bill and told him to send over Gwen’s file. Bill correctly said he couldn’t do that until he heard from Gwen. This makes sense—you don’t want any lawyer to be able to call your lawyer and demand your file, claiming he’s your new lawyer. But Peter responded by telling Bill that he would report him to the bar for making his move on Gwen unless he faxed the file immediately, without hearing from Gwen, and Bill folded and did so. This was incredibly, incredibly wrong, and yet we’re supposed to see Peter as a “good guy” and be rooting for him.

Anyway, Peter, Gwen, June, and Stan walk in silence for a while and then return to the courthouse.

Peter sat at the table silently praying. Gwen was lost in thoughts of escape and victories and revenge and her desire to embrace her daughter so tightly she would never let go.

I’m fairly certain Farris wants us to view Gwen positively, but frankly, I’m more than a little bit worried about her.

Anyway, Judge Romer comes in and delivers his ruling as follows:

“Thank you for waiting. A case like this one is a terrible burden on a judge. We want to do what is right for children and parents, but sometimes those are not the same thing.”

. . .

“First let me say,” Romer said, “that I always give great credibility to the testimony of CPS workers. If they tell me there are bruises, I give great weight to their testimony because of their experience and advocacy for children.”

“And I also note Dr. McGuire’s analysis makes perfect sense to me if, in fact, there were bruises found on Casey.”

“I will say I was very impressed with Dr. Schram. The fact that she was a mother before she was a psychologist only enhances the legitimacy of her analysis in my mind.”

. . .

“I attach a great deal of weight to her testimony especially because she interviewed mother and daughter together and was able to watch them interact.”

“This brings me to what I believe to be the crucial issue in this case—the existence of bruises.”

. . .

“As I said earlier, I always attach a great deal of credibility to the testimony of CPS workers. But there are some troubling things I must consider as well. It would have been better for all concerned if there had been photographs taken according to the usual policy. But, human error does happen, and I accept that explanation.”

. . .

“But the description of the location of the bruises was quite different from last week to this week. That is quite troubling. Based on the normal credibility I attach to CPS workers, I view this whole thing as basically neutral. The normal credibility is undermined to some degree, but not compulsively by this discrepancy alone.”

“For me, the conclusive factor was the testimony of Officer Donahue. These CPS workers see a lot of bruises, and he sees some. He is not likely to mix up two different cases. The fact that he believed they had not found bruises based upon the comment that the case would be closed if Mrs. Landis cooperated is, for me, the evidence that tips the scales.”

. . .

“I am not making a finding that the CPS workers made up anything. I know Mr. Barron inferred this. I reject this inference. But Mr. Barron correctly pointed out that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution, and I find that it simply was not carried out in this case. Accordingly, the charges are dismissed. Casey Landis is ordered to be returned to her mother forthwith.”

For the sake of clarity, the ellipses are points where I took out things like Gail turning read, Peter praying desperately, and Gwen almost freaking out—in other words, I took out the reactions that Farris interspersed Romer’s ruling with, so that we can view his ruling on its own and without interruption.

And for the record, yes, Farris’s flagrant abuse of quotation marks here got to me.

A number of my readers are lawyers, and I’ve read their reaction to various parts of the hearing and various individuals’t testimony with interest. Interestingly, they stated that the two individuals whose testimony the found least convincing were Dr. Schram and Officer Donahue. Dr. Schram because she drew more on her experience as a mother than on her knowledge as an expert, and Officer Donahue because he didn’t actually know anything. And interestingly, these are the two individuals whose testimony Judge Romer was most impressed with.

Judge Romer states that he found Dr. Schram’s testimony especially legitimate because ” she was a mother before she was a psychologist.” I’m wondering if this would be enough basis for Gail to appeal on. After all, this is supposed to be expert testimony, and that expertise is psychologist, not mother.

There are also things that never came up in this hearing, but should have. I have several readers who are social workers or have extensive experience with social work, and they have left comments noting that it is customary for a social worker to take a bruised child to a doctor for a medical examination, and also that social workers generally remove a child immediately if they are going to remove them at all, rather than leaving them in the home and making a motion to remove at a hearing the following week. That Donna neither took Casey to a doctor for examination nor immediately removed her from the home should be damning evidence that something isn’t adding up.

Of course, it is possible that things were different twenty years ago when this book was published, and that it was not then customary to have doctors be the ones to conduct the physical examination when there is suspicious bruising, or to immediately remove endangered children without first waiting for a hearing. I honestly do not know. However, the fact that Donna’s fraud could not be carried out today, given the way social services currently operates, only amplifies the problems inherent to Farris’s fear mongering.

Anyway, Judge Romer’s ruling is attended by the elation you would expect:

Gwen jumped to her feet, grabbed Peter around the neck and squeezed him tightly in pure joy. Her parents came up and joined in the hugging and happy crying.

“Oh, Peter, thank you. This is the happiest moment in years. I can’t believe it. I was so scared. Oh, thank you, thank you.” She grabbed him again and held on. Peter knew he probably shouldn’t, but he hugged back with enthusiasm.

Oh, Peter. Peter, Peter, Peter. The “you know you shouldn’t” ship sailed a long time ago, back when you asked Gwen out on a date to come to your church with you.

So, question. What do you guess happens in the remaining 300 pages of this book?