Another DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) scandal is bubbling over in Snohomish County, this involving foster parents Amy and Dick Langley and their foster daughter Poca. Poca was apparently born a very sick preemie to drug addicted parents, and has been living with the Langleys from the age of four months to almost four years old. Now DSHS and the courts want to remove Poca from the Langley’s care, and the Langleys are crying foul – very loudly.
Not Poca - just another cute kid
This five part story – one part a day all this week – tries to look behind the headlines to explain:
- The fight between DSHS and the foster family that wants to keep Poca;
- Important questions that have gone mostly overlooked in all the media stories about the case;
- Why reunification with biological parents – most of them deeply damaged individuals – is the primary goal for DSHS and the Courts in these cases;
- What dealing with DSHS is like from a family law attorneys’ perspective; and
- Why all the media outcry on this case may not end up helping little girl Poca.
Three years after placing Poca with the Langleys, DSHS now wants to remove Poca from their care. The Langleys have over the years, cared for several kids (like Poca) born to substance-abusing parents. The Langleys claim that the DSHS removal of Poca is retaliation against them because they complained about their treatment by the agency in relation to a different foster child.
There have been lots of press reports critical of DSHS’s handling of the case, from Northwest Cable News, the Stop Corrupt DSS blog, an ongoing investigation from King 5 News, State Senator Pam Roach’s blog, etc. Even Governor Chris Gregoire weighed in – well, sort of.
Certainly at first glance it appears that DSHS has mishandled this case. Northwest Cable News reports:
Poca’s neurologist wrote because of her developmental disorders it’s “crucial” she stay with the Langleys. After that DSHS removed Poca from his care. “The decision to remove this child from their care is unconscionable,” said Dr. Stephen Glass. “I am irate. I am in disbelief that this happened.” …
Dr. Glass has worked on CPS cases for years, and says he hasn’t seen anything like this. He describes the case handling as “capricious, bumbling, disorganized, haphazard, and decisions have been made that are unfounded and unbelievable.”
But for all this indignation in the press, there are some pretty important facts that are getting short shrift.
For example, the retaliation that the Langleys allege comes from a Child Protective Services investigation regarding another child placed with them, an adoptive child, Taylor. According to King 5 news, 6-year old Taylor had become increasingly hostile and violent while with the Langleys. Thus:
They wanted Taylor out and sent him to live on a farm with a family friend. Some people might question that decision. But the Langleys have a lot of experience with special needs children.
So because they have lots of experience, no one should question a decision to send a six-year old packing?
We don’t know whether the Langleys tried any or all of the other strategies we should expect from adults caring for a little boy with disturbed behavior, before passing him on to be someone else’s problem: Counseling? Play therapy? Medication? New discipline techniques?
The King 5 story continues:
A few months into the stay, CPS got a call that Taylor could be in trouble. A farm visitor said the Langleys had “pawned off” a son who was being exposed to an “illegal nightclub” run in the barn. CPS investigated, finding them guilty of neglect….
KING 5 obtained video from those parties – concerts held on weekends. Many people told us these were family friendly events that didn’t feature nude dancers.
So apparently, the fact that those dancing at these barn parties were clothed means what? That sending a 6-year old to live somewhere else with people who were not trained, approved or licensed to care for kids like Taylor was no big deal?
The family friend, Jeff Shock, not suprisingly, defends the Langleys:
Schock said the Langleys checked on their son all the time. “They would bring food in boxes all the time,” he said. “They were here constantly.”
Reports King 5:
“We removed him because that was in the best interest for him and for our family,” Amy Langley said. “So how is that neglect?”
It’s clear from the article why it was in the family’s best interest to remove the six-year old; less clear is how it was in the child’s best interest to be removed from the family.
At the very least, the facts as presented by this story – a story that paints the Langleys of being just this side of Mother Theresa – raise some questions. Like most complex family law issues, it may well be that there is fault in more than one place.
The problem is that the story focuses on 1) whether Taylor was being neglected at the family friend’s house, and 2) whether there was an illegal nightclub there. Kids like Taylor are very hard to care for. I have sympathy for the Langleys in being overwhelmed by this difficult responsibility. I have a good friend who, after years of being a foster parent finally quit – primarily because of his frustrations in having to work with DSHS.
It’s certainly ironic that the Langleys are on the one hand fighting to keep Poca, and on the other defending themselves for not wanting to keep Taylor. The underlying issue -providing a troubled child with continuity of placement in a stable family – is in fact the same in both cases.
And it’s striking that nothing is said about any of these questions in King 5’s long, seemingly fact-intensive article.
Tomorrow, in part two of five, I discuss some vital questions the media are mostly ignoring on this case.
Written by Christopher Rama Rao with help from Katy Banahan.
Correction: An earlier version of this post referred to Taylor as a foster child not as an adoptive child. This has been corrected.
10 Comments
Thank you for uncovering the truth about this situation. Everyone in America seems to be feeling oh,so sorry for this wretched family and screaming and demanding the return of Poca to this family. By law, social services MUST do everything in their power to reunify biological families. However, in most cases they do just the opposite. Who are these people to think they’re better off raising her than her parents? I hardly think that Poca’s real parents are abusing her during their visits. Think of it logically, if you’re being scrutinized by CPS with a fine tooth comb, are you going to intentionally abuse or neglect your child? I don’t think so. However, accidents DO happen to children. I wish they didn’t but they do. I am on a group with Amy Langley and she comes across as this pitiful, falsely accused foster mommy and people are buying into her alligator tears. Where were her tears for Taylor? In fact, that’s going to be the title of my next blog entry regarding this case. At first I found her to be compelling and thought this was a miscarriage of justice until I found your site and it opened my eyes. It reminded me that I need to investigate claims of innocence and cries of foul play before forming an opinion. I, like most other Americans, had forgotten all about the “Taylor” case, although it was a hot topic not that long back. How quickly we forget and move on to the next case.
They shipped Taylor off like he was the family pet, and to a farm no less. They carried him “boxes of food,” again relegating him to an animal. It’s unclear if they kept receiving money for him but it’s hard to imagine that they weren’t, considering DSHS claims they knew nothing about the move.
Mind you, I don’t like CPS agencies nor do I trust or even believe them but in this case, rare though it may be, I think they did the right thing. Amy and Dick are going to appear on the Today show in the a.m. and I have written them an email, exposing them with a link to this article. I hope they do
some real work before buying into their sob story.
Most of the time, CPS agencies and foster parents are in collusion against biological parents. However, kudos to DSHS for doing the right thing this ONE time and to you guys for having the courage to print it.
Sincerely,
Brenda Alexander
The child’s biological parents sleep during therapy sessions and refuse lessons from a visiting nurse on how to care for their special needs child. The child’s older sibling died while an infant after testing positive for meth. The child’s younger sibling was removed from the home within the last few months.
The judge agrees that the biological parents are not a good place for Poca.
There is a federal law that mandates that parental rights be taken away after 15 months of foster care.
The Langley’s have had more than 20 foster children. They specialize in children with special needs. I cannot fathom them sending a 6 year old boy to stay at the farm without compelling reasons. Please reserve judgement – none of us have all the facts.
I really don’t care about the Langley’s feelings. I care about Poca and other children like her that are being denied a stable, loving home. Those bio parents rights should have been terminated years ago. Poca deserves her own home.
I’ve felt from the beginning that this case has been completely lopsided in the news media. Thank you so much for discussing this in an even-handed and fair way! I think the idea of sending a child with special needs off to some farm is absolutely inexcusable!
People send their own biological children to outdoor boot camps and farms all the time for therapeutic reasons. They pay top dollar for this. I do not hear too much public outcry about this. No one knows why this happened in this case and perhaps living on a farm is a wonderful experiennce.
well the information that was presented was that this little child was beaten with a belt on this farm by some shady characters there…not exactly an “outdoor fun experience”
I have a question for anyone who can help me. I am a college student who is writing a paper about this topic. Are their any laws that protect the foster parents in the sense of if you have the child from birth to 9 years old, are there any rights that are established for you when the biological parents want and get custody back? I’m new to the internet and am having problems trying to find information on here. I know there are laws regarding foster parents wanting to adopt a foster child but don’t know much else on the subject. Thanking anyone in advance for their assistance.
It’s amazing who comes out of the woodwork over cases in the realm of the media. Those who are outraged by previous personal experiences seem to find this venue of blogging/commenting as their podium.
While I too appreciate the right for this law firm to present the Langley/Poca case in an intelligent and unbiased format, I do want to testify that I am a personal friend of the Langleys (over 10 years now), wanting to encourage those who read this series that not all the pertinent information is given. Before you step up with the purpose of negative judgement, seek out the facts. Unfortunately, not all factual information is available and I can also testify to the fact that DSHS/CPS made FALSE allegations time and again. We all hope that those in a powerful position would behave with high ethical and moral standards, but this is not always the case with these departments. I am saddened for those social workers who in fact have altruistic beliefs and work for the benefit of all within each case…bio parents, foster parents and more importantly, the children, who didn’t ask to be born into the system.
I also want to testify regarding the Langleys adopted son whom is mentioned in this part of the series. If Mr. Rao would have done his homework, he would have found out that this boy was extremely well cared for and loved beyond measure by the Langleys. He was cared for physically, mentally and developmentally from the beginning of his life with the Langleys, who sought as much professional care as they could possibly seek. Unfortunately, this poor little guy, who called me “auntie”, was exposed to an unbelievable amount of drug paraphenalia in utero and was it was obvious to all who met him that he was not your average child. The Langleys knew what his circumstances were from the beginning and were willing to give their all to help this little guy succeed in the world as well as he could. After years of helping him in all possible ways, he unfortunately continued to become more and more aggressive/violent. He would attack people without being provoked at a very young age. He had an obvious attachment disorder no matter how much love and how healthy the environment around him was. I did respite care for the family and I will tell you that if he were mine, I would not be comfortable sleeping at night, for fear he would burn the house down or attack me…even though he told me often “I love you Auntie”. ANYONE who spent time with him, would not trust him around other children. THIS is the most important reason the Langleys looked into other treatment/care facilities for him. They desired more than anything to keep him within the family yet wanted to make sure he was safe, knowing he was in need of 24 hour monitoring. The state (DSHS,etc) refused to help them, so after weeks and weeks of being turned away they pursued placement within the state themselves. They found placement within a facility who was willing to take him, but the state intervened and refused this possibility. Because the other Langley children were at risk (He had already broken his mom’s nose and attacked another woman with a knife…at the age of 5 mind you) they moved their son to the home of one of their great friends whom the boy loved being around. Yes it happened to be a farm…people do live on farms. This was a temporary placement for their son. He was given great care at this farm and the allegations made about “nude dancers, etc” were all false. This began with a disgruntled neighbor in the area who called CPS to say that the boy was living on coke and doritos. It all escalated from there with all the unfounded stories. To conclude, because I could write all day about what I witnessed, I will just say that this amazing boy, whom the Langleys continue to love to this day, was placed with another family who had no children and were willing to work with his extreme issues.
Because the state would not help, the Langleys placed the boy where he would have more than they were able to give. It took weeks of prayer and COPIOUS tears for them to reach this decision. So for those of you who think the worst of the Langleys…take the plank out of your own eye. You don’t know the truth or how you would have handled this situation. Stop spending energy on bashing people and give it towards helping kids…
I hate to point out the obvious here but the writer of this article is instructing the reader how to use critical thinking when reading news stories, he’s not attacking the Langleys. Due to the lack of information present in the news stories, the writer here points out several things he doesn’t know about the Langley’s involvement in the case, then speculates about the possible things the Langleys were doing wrong to cause DSHS to accuse them of neglecting Taylor. He did this to demonstrate some of the complexities that can be involved with these types of cases, but the Langleys have already been exonerated of any wrong doing in a court of law that concluded DSHS’s allegations were unfounded. In part 2 of this series of articles the writer emphasizes:
“It is of course noteworthy that the court in the more recent licensing hearing ruled that the Langleys did not neglect Taylor or any other child.”
The writer of this series of articles didn’t expound on this, but more information about this court case can be found on other websites.
It seems some of the people commenting here mistook the writer’s speculations for fact and thought he was actually trying to say the Langleys are bad foster parents when in fact he kept repeating “I don’t know” when referring to the details of the case concerning the Langleys. I agree with JK in that I get the impression some of the people who left a comment here might have let a general bias they have against foster parents cloud their judgment. And by the way, I don’t know the Langleys.
The main reason I posted this story on my blog is to show the lengths that CPS will go through to remove a child. It doesn’t not matter if they have to lie, forge documents, falsified records, or ignore that an abuse substantiation has been removed by a judge.
The foster parents in this case are getting national attention, yet biological parents experiencing the same type of illegal behavior by CPS all of the time and no one listens to them…they are just automatically assumed to be child abusers because “CPS Says so…” That is not always the case, in many cases children are illegally removed from their biological parents for no reason what so ever…they may have questioned CPS authority when they came to their home, stated their constitutional rights, or complained about the social worker and departments inability to perform their job as perscribed by law.
The fact remains, the fosters in this case and in Washington are at least protected by a law barring retaliation by CPS, Bio parents are not….and while these fosters receive national attention because a child that is not even theirs legally is being removed, biological parents who’s children are being removed illegally are being ignored by the media and the government.
I think more focus needs to be placed on changes to CPS to protect families and children…especially when they are being torn apart by lies…more focus needs to be place on the actions and inactions of CPS…this system is broken beyond repair, they are removing children who should not be removed and leaving children who should be removed to die…ask yourself why, could it be because they only want “adoptable children for those bonus funds?” Ask yourself why national attention is given to foster parents who are having their “foster” child removed, but no attention is given to natural parents in the same boat!
it looks to me like these people traded this child off like going to the dog pound getting a new puppy and decided they did.nt want it.cps is nothing but a joke they dont check on these kids and the ones that do they know ahead of time they are coming so every one can be on there tippie toes.i know alot of foster familys have cps as family members you pat my back i’ll pat your back as the old saying go’si’m glad this case happen not for the foster family but for the child and the money they are spending for alawyer guess who’s paying the tab for it from the money they received from caring for these foster kids thats where.god i miss my grandkids from all my heart and sole.the sleepless nights then i come across a story such as these people cps like i said is a joke take the kids out of a home where the parents do drugs and dont care for the kids but good lord dont take the kids from loving familys that are trying the best they can.cps has got to stop doing what they are doing to familys the courts need to stop listening to the lies that cps puts out to them
4 Trackbacks
[...] the first part of this five-part series, I discussed the fight between DSHS and Poca’s foster [...]
[...] the first two parts of this five-part series, I discussed 1) The fight between DSHS and Poca’s foster family; and 2) Some vital questions the media is mostly ignoring on this [...]
[...] the first three parts of this five-part series, I discussed 1) The fight between DSHS and Poca’s foster family; 2) Some vital questions the media is mostly ignoring on this case; and 3) Why DSHS and the Courts [...]
[...] the first four parts of this five-part series, I have discussed 1) The fight between DSHS and Poca’s foster family; 2) Some vital questions the media is mostly ignoring on this case; 3) Why DSHS and the Courts [...]