Michael Morris – In Focus

Today the Alamogordo Daily News reported child abuse convictions (ADN Story) resulting from a 2-10-06 incident that became the subject of heated accusations by Sheriff’s deputies against CYFD in the form of an article, reprinted in large part from the original Michael Shinabery bobber, in the ADN today. The problem all along was that the child was returned to the now convicted parents because the deputies hurling the allegations were never taught how to do their job. The comments they made show how they saw the situation. When I covered this alarming spectacle originally (Original 2006 Story) I simply overlayed the law on top of their statements. That story was mainly an education piece on the law more expansively and why the ADN is a rag. Today, just a quick version and some revisions now that we are lawfully sure the child went back to bone breakingly abusive parents.

Apparently the ADN’s Lord Karl Anderson cannot get through one day without some ridiculous defamation that typically blows up like the cartoon cigar. Today is no exception, but he does leave us wondering just who it is he intended to defame. Let’s try to stay concerned with remediation of the situation that caused this rather than the slanted lapdog “journalism” that made this a 3 story item 2 years ago. While I called for education of the deputies the ADN invited Norbert Sanchez and Eddie Medrano to hurl misguided accusations claiming, as it did today, that CYFD stated that it could not comment. What did they need to say? Both Medrano and Sanchez agree that after 2 days they had not given CYFD probable cause to file papers in court to keep the child in custody.

You can skip to D for the little snippet we need today.

NMSA 32A-4-7. Release or delivery from custody.
A. A person taking a child into custody shall, with all reasonable speed:
(1) release the child to the child's parent, guardian or custodian and issue verbal counsel or warning as may be appropriate; or

(2) deliver the child to the department or to an appropriate shelter-care facility or, in the case of a child who is believed to be suffering from a serious physical or mental condition or illness that requires prompt treatment or diagnosis, deliver the child to a medical facility. If a law enforcement officer delivers a child to a shelter-care facility or a medical facility, the officer shall immediately notify the department that the child has been placed in the department's legal custody.

B. When an alleged neglected or abused child is delivered to the department, a department caseworker shall review the need for placing the child in custody and shall release the child from custody unless custody is appropriate or has been ordered by the court. When a child is delivered to an appropriate shelter-care facility or medical facility, a department caseworker shall review the need for retention of custody within a reasonable time after delivery of the child to the facility and shall release the child from custody unless custody is appropriate or has been ordered by the court.

C. If a child is placed in the legal custody of the department and is not released to the child's parent, guardian or custodian, the department shall give written notice thereof as soon as possible, and in no case later than twenty-four hours, to the child's parent, guardian or custodian together with a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody.

D. Reasonable efforts shall be made to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home, with the paramount concern being the child's health and safety. In all cases when a child is taken into custody, the child shall be released to the child's parent, guardian or custodian, unless the department files a petition within two days from the date that the child was taken into custody.

Any questions?

This is another example of a true lie. It is true that Medrano and Sanchez say "I insisted the child needed to remain in state custody until we could determine if there had been abuse.". It is also true that CYFD cannot comment on the case. All true. The problem is this “sit boy” rendition by the ADN first by Shinabery and now today by Anderson leaves the impression that CYFD somehow is to blame here and is clamming up. That is the lie part.

Most of the people I talk to seem certain incompetence at the paper is the reason for this bull. After a few years of following it I tend to agree. To run the kind of slam piece Shinabery wrote and Anderson resurrected without having a factual basis seems rather incompetent, but here we are again. Had Shinabery checked the law or Anderson this site they would have had facts from which unearth some context. Ignorance is in the style guide. Guaranteed 97% Fact Free(tm).

Holding feet to the fire or the ADN libel tactic are not going to make this any better. I truly believe these deputies were genuinely concerned for the safety of the child. It is appalling that with the County Attorney here pulling down solid six figures that these men were without the legal tools to do their job and protect the child. I do understand that these two deputies are now fully aware of the law from some source.

So was Anderson meaning to trash CYFD (no comment) or Medrano and Sanchez by once again pointing out that their bosses sent them in blind to do the most serious of police work. From his past I would say CYFD, but Anderson seems to hate any authority not investigating his stories for him.

Now for the Rallying Cry I promised:

Support your peace officers with more than words.