The Court of Appeals has reversed a decision made by a juvenile court trial judge finding that a school teacher emotionally neglected a student.

Judge Kathleen Nelson sided with the Division of Child and Family Services when she found that a teacher, identified only as K.Y. had emotionally neglected a student.  The finding was based on a single incident that occurred in 2007.

On the second day of school, the third grade student was fidgeting and kept taking things out of her desk while K.Y. was speaking.  K.Y. admonished her several times but the student wouldn’t stop.  Finally, K.Y. placed a single piece of scotch tape over the student’s wrists and attached it to each side of the desk.  The student could have removed her hands but didn’t because she didn’t want the teacher to be mad at her.  The teacher left the tape on for two minutes.

DCFS investigated the incident and offered counseling services to the student.  The parents of the student denied counseling.  DCFS then found that K.Y. had emotionally abused the student.  This was important because as a public school teacher, this type of finding could ruin the teacher’s career.  The teacher appealed and an administrative law judge agreed with DCFS.  The teacher again appealed.  This time, Judge Kathleen Nelson disagreed with DCFS, finding that no physical or emotional abuse occurred because the student felt no pain and could have moved her hands if she chose to.  Judge Nelson did find that K.Y. had emotionally neglected the student.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.  The court of appeals found that DCFS and Judge Nelson did not follow the law as enacted by the legislature.  Instead, they followed the law as contained in the DCFS policy manual.  Because the legislature passes laws, not DCFS employees, K.Y. was not guilty of abuse or neglect.

In my opinion, DCFS and the Juvenile Court’s need to change.  This case should have never been pursued by DCFS.  Unfortunately, there are many cases similar to this that are pursued by DCFS on a regular basis.  The existing culture within DCFS is out of touch with Utah standards and ideals.  Almost every case worker at DCFS has a bachelor’s degree in social work and is one of two years out of college.  Very rarely have any caseworkers had any experience raising children of their own.  DCFS employees know that they are out of touch with the people of Utah and view their work as an us versus them battle.  I once had a DCFS psychologist tell me that students who get bad grades have bad parents and students that get good grades do so despite their parents.  That type of attitude is rampant in DCFS.  That attitude is shared by those who work in the guardian ad litem’s office. In the hundreds of cases I’ve handled in Juvenile Court, I can count on one finger the number of times that the Guardian ad Litem’s office disagreed with DCFS.

The Juvenile Courts need to change as well.  Almost all of the Juvenile Court Judge’s in our State are pulled from the ranks of DCFS or the Gurdian ad Litem’s office.  They share the culture and beliefs of DCFS.  In my experience, representing hundreds of parents in Juvenile Courts, the Juvenile Court Judges rarely disagree with DCFS.