On May 11 the court awarded custody of six-year-old Eli Hart to his mother shortly before she killed him with a shotgun.
Looking at the court records alone, the decision appears reasonable. But media reports add information apparently known to officials that wasn’t included in the documentation. In particular, multiple relatives were frantically communicating concerns about Eli’s safety to the social worker, and the mother’s own father warned the court that Eli was at risk.
The courts and counties are pressured to keep children with their parents. That’s why Eli stayed with his mother despite the objections from other family members, child protection cases in three counties, and serious mental health issues.
How can we change this too-familiar pattern? We, the public, must fight to transform the system from one that is parent-centric to one that puts child safety first.
=====
This week’s podcast is a special interview with Professor of Law Daniel Hatcher on the practice of counties and states seizing foster children’s income to pay for their placements. Tune in here or wherever you hear your favorite podcast shows.
Eli had a safe, loving, healthy, stable father that he should have been placed with. He never should have been returned to that monster!
I was a Guardian ad Litem in Ramsey County for about ten years. I am amazed that Eli’s Guardian, despite her comments on the case that are now public, recommended that he be returned permanently to his mother’s custody. We GALs were aware that Social Services was pressured to keep children with their biological parents. But we saw our role as continuing to stress “the best interests on the child,” which often required contesting the social worker’s recommendation. I personally sometimes described our role as “saving one child at a time.”