[blparent] Fw: [il-talk] Fw: [Chapter-presidents] Setting the record straightabout Baby Mikaelaand her parents

[Deborah Kent Stein]

I'm forwarding a note that Gary Wunder, President of the NFB of Missouri, 
posted to the Chapter Presidents Listserv regarding the Baby Mikaela case.

Debbie

 From: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder at earthlink.net>
 Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:29 PM
> To: "'NFB Chapter Presidents discussion list'"
 <chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org>; "nfbmo list" <nfbmo at nfbnet.org>
 Subject: [Chapter-presidents] Setting the record straight about Baby
> Mikaelaand her parents

 Hello folks. I've been off the list for a couple of days, and I have to
 tell
 you that I'm somewhat disheartened by some of the messages. It's almost
 like
 the facts have gotten lost here. Let me see if I can put some of them
 down.
 When Erika first attempted to feed her baby, she was not given instruction
 as to how to do it. She was the one who reported a problem, and that
 problem
 was resolved simply by repositioning the baby and showing Erika how to
 ensure that the baby's nose was free for breathing. The hospital records
 do
 not reflect anything to indicate there was a code blue or that anyone
 besides the nurse had to become involved in the incident.
 Now we come to what happened afterward. You can certainly make the
 argument
 that the nurse, if there was any kind of question, thought of herself as a
 mandated reporter and took the safe road by calling the Children's
 Services
 Division. For me the biggest problem is what happened after the Children's
 Services Division became involved. Erika reports that she was asked how
 she
 would bathe her baby, diaper it, know where it was, and take its
 temperature. These questions she answered. That should have been
 sufficient.
 When we heard about this incident, we started by contacting Rehabilitation
 Services for the Blind, which, like the Children's Services Division, is a
 part of the Missouri Department of Social Services. They were certainly
 upset by the situation, offered services,  but told the judge they were in
 a
 difficult position because, while they had offered their services to
 educate
 The Children's Services Division about issues of blindness, they were in
 no
 position to see that their offer was accepted.

 We contacted the Children's Services Division both through in formal
 channels and through legal counsel. They were not interested in learning
 about blindness. They were not interested in talking with us.
 When we were involved in what was the second hearing regarding this case,
 the judge (actually she is called a commissioner) was quite concerned
 about
 the actions of the agency and let it be known. She observed that this most
 certainly was not the first blind couple to raise a child, and that she
 would be very surprised if the hospital in question had not seen blind
 parents before. She indicated that while she was on vacation, an attempt
 should be made to increase the number of visits which Blake and Eric got
 with Mikaela, that some of those visits should be unsupervised, and that
 there should be some overnight visits in the mix. This did not find its
 way
 into her written decision, however, and with the exception of one
 unsupervised visit, which took place on the Friday before Mikaela was
 returned, I know of only one unsupervised visit in the fifty-seven days in
 which Erika and Blake were prevented from caring for their child. There
 were
 no overnight visits, unsupervised or otherwise.

 Some have observed here that the Children's Services Division actually did
 the right thing by coming to its senses. May I politely respond hogwash!
 The
 Children's Services Division started negotiations on the day before the
 evidentiary hearing was to take place. They delivered Mikaela to her home
 at
 9 AM, produced papers for our lawyer at 11 AM, and all to avoid the
 hearing
 which was scheduled for 3 PM. They did not benevolently relent. They
 waited
 as long as they possibly could before having to defend their actions with
 Blake, Erika, and the national Federation of the blind being represented
 by
 counsel.
 There has been a lot of discussion about whether the actions we are now
 going to take are vengeful or punitive. The religions which many of us
 share
 give us no right to be vengeful. Let me ask you to consider whether we
 should let Blake and Erika's case rest now that they have custody of their
 child, or whether we should use it, as we have used so many others in the
 past, to establish some meaningful precedent. I, for one, am not satisfied
 to let the prevailing legal wisdom be that you can take a child from blind
 parents and, if you decide you've made a mistake after 57 days, can return
 them with no consequences. I respect the work that children's services
 workers do. I want children protected from abuse. I want children removed
 from homes where drug use makes the parents irresponsible. I want children
 removed from homes where they are clearly neglected. I do not wish to make
 the lives of hard-working public servants more difficult than they already
 are. Nevertheless, I don't think those of us in the National Federation of
 the Blind should be happy or comfortable with settling for anything less
 than a systemic change. What was done was against the law. The Federal
 Office for Civil Rights is extremely interested in the case. There are at
 least three motions we are prepared to file in the court system where the
 legal and constitutional rights of blind people have been violated.
 One of the most troubling experiences I had at the national convention
 this
 year was talking with young people who almost begged me to convince them
 they were hearing it wrong. Some came to talk with me and started our
 conversation by asking whether this was some urban legend which had gotten
 started on the Internet with which my name had been associated. I had to
 tell them that it was no urban legend and that its association with my
 name
 was no accident. Others came to ask me whether this was a past event which
 somehow had resurfaced. What they wanted to know was how long ago this had
 happened. No matter the questions with which they came, all of them left
 badly shaken. Many remarked that they were newly engaged and were planning
 to have children. Others reported being newly married and that a child was
 on the way. All of them were concerned, because they thought all of these
 issues about child custody and blindness had long since been resolved by
 the
 National Federation of the Blind.
 Sometimes government bashing takes second place only to the World Series
 and
 the Super Bowl in terms of a public past time, and I don't want to be a
 part
 of that. What I do want to see the Federation be a part of is exposing
 this
 behavior for exactly what it is, and for saying to everyone who has ears,
 whether they work in a social service agency, a hospital, a newspaper, or
 in
 some small factory down the road, that blindness is no reason to take a
 child from its parents. Should we educate? Of course we should, and no
 doubt
 one of the things we will be asking that the court address is education
 for
 the entities that are the targets of our actions.

 I understand, as do we all, that blindness is a terribly misunderstood
 disability, and whenever I can, I try to be compassionate about the way I
 address the issue. Even so, there is a difference between being
 compassionate and understanding about people who are ignorant when it
 comes
 to what we need and what we can do, and concluding that because there is
 widespread misunderstanding, we really have no right to complain or do
 anything about it. I think we have to make a firm statement. That firm
 statement has to be "You will not take our children. If you do, there will
 be consequences and they will be severe. If you will let us teach you
 through our public outreach and our seminars, will be glad to have you,
 but
 if you make us, we will teach you in the commissions and courts charged
 with
 defending the civil rights of America's citizens."
 As a final note, let me suggest that Missouri happens to be the state
 receiving attention now, but Missouri is no different from many other
 states
 when it comes to their knowledge of blind people and the speed with which
 they address issues such as this. One person several weeks ago wrote to
 inquire in what small backward town this took place, only to learn the
 small
 town was not a small town at all but Kansas City. Geography offers us
 little
 protection. We must all be vigilant and guard against the idea that this
 could never happen to us because we live in a more progressive community.
 Gary

 P.S. We have some reason to believe this will receive national coverage on
 CBS on Monday morning.

 GW