Have you faced allegations from DCFS (CPS) that were untrue? Are you caught in the juvenile court system and struggling with its chaos?
I first met my client about a year ago when he retained me to seek mediation with his ex-wife over his concerns regarding parenting and parent time. After a few months of attempting to coordinate mediation with his ex-wife, tragedy struck his family. He is a former Marine, a divorced father with three young children—two autistic, one of whom (the son) had a troubling habit of wandering off from home. Despite being divorced, he and his ex-wife generally managed to co-parent and communicate, each respecting that they were parents in the children’s lives. (Although they disagreed on how to implement a plan for the children who had higher needs.) He was always proactive, arranging services to support his autistic children, and when he could not come to resolution with the mother, he repeatedly voiced his concerns regarding the care of his children to the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) about issues at the mother’s home, especially regarding the safety of his autistic son who tended to wander. DCFS had ignored him every time, not even opening a case to investigate his concerns.
Then came the unimaginable. On September 3, 2024, the nine-year-old autistic son tragically died. He had been left alone briefly by his mother in her car, found a weapon, and accidentally shot himself. My client was nowhere near the incident and had nothing to do with it. But tragedy attracts scrutiny and opportunity, and soon enough, DCFS knocked on his door.
A few days after losing his son, while my client was still deep in grief, a DCFS agent interrogated him under the guise of a “routine check.” They asked him what he planned to do next about his surviving children. Still reeling from the tragic accident, he honestly admitted he hadn’t yet figured that out. DCFS seized this vulnerable moment as ammunition for a baseless petition alleging he failed to protect his children, and had not done anything proactive to protect the children from mother’s actions – additionally falsely characterizing his youngest autistic daughter as “non-verbal” to heighten the sense of urgency. (Of interest, the same DCFS did nothing to address my client’s concerns previously reported related to this issue- so should they have been brought in as a party that failed to do anything proactively to protect the children from the mother’s actions??? Hypocrites, eh?) And how could he have stopped mother from exercising her right to have a firearm in her car?
Angry at this bold and callous move by DCFS, we immediately requested a Juvenile Protective Order to place the children temporarily with their father as mother was also now facing criminal charges that were being developed. It was promptly denied by the same judge assigned to oversee the DCFS petition in juvenile court. Unfazed, we petitioned separately in the divorce court for a custody modification, and the parents ultimately agreed to joint custody—something we promptly disclosed to DCFS and the juvenile court during the juvenile court litigation.
At the initial juvenile pretrial court hearing, the state aggressively demanded my client relinquish his firearms and accept unannounced home visits from DCFS. My client, an ex-Marine and responsible gun owner, was not even involved in the tragic incident and I refused to yield his constitutional rights citing the 2nd and 4th amendment provisions. The judge paused, acknowledged the state’s stated safety concerns, but wisely noted my client’s rights, but ordered him to secure his firearms on his own terms. This was our first victory, though tensions visibly simmered.
Next was mediation (run by juvenile court). When we arrived at the courthouse, punctual as always, we found ourselves waiting alone—the state attorney, DCFS representative, Guardian ad Litem (GAL), and even the mother’s attorney strolled in late, joking about being late and that I could send them a bill. I confronted them, insisting they recognize that my client was personally footing the bill for their tardiness and asked where to send my bill. They didn’t appreciate my directness.
During mediation, it quickly became clear they sought a dependency admission from my client—a false acknowledgment that he couldn’t adequately provide necessary care for his children due to circumstances beyond his control. This request was outrageous. My client had done everything possible to support his children and DCFS had done nothing when he reported his concerns. When I demanded DCFS correct the false accusation and the state correct their petition and apologize to my client for their insensitive treatment, they mocked me. They even tried isolating my client from me, claiming I didn’t understand the purpose of mediation. (Quite obviously, they had not done their research on me. If they had, they would have noted my listing on the court roster as a Master Mediator, with over 15 years experience.) My client stood firm, telling them he would have been far less patient with his responses to them and he supported my bravado and representation. I told the mediator that my client and I would wait in the lobby for 15 minutes for a reply from the State to apologize for the manner in which they had handled the matter so insensitively to my client and if not, then we would leave. Eventually, realizing we were ready to walk, the state, GAL, and DCFS grudgingly apologized to my client. Still, mediation collapsed when my client refused to admit to a findng of dependency. In the mediation, in order to entice my client, the state offered that it could get my client full custody of the children. I retorted then if they would write that as a promise, then of course my client would admit to a finding of ‘dependency’. Of course, they would not do that. Interestingly, later Mother would tell my client that the state was telling her the same thing in her room during mediation. (The Gestapo interrogation tactics were exposed.)
The hostility from the state and GAL escalated after mediation. They joined forces with the mother’s counsel, isolating my client further. I had hoped mother’s attorney would collaborate with me, as his client was the one charged criminally for the accident and clearly had incentive to seek support from my client – not give him incentive to throw her under the bus. (She was facing a finding of neglect or abuse.) Instead, he ignored my outreach, strangely submitting text messages portraying the parents in negative light in their communications into evidence. This only painted his own client negatively, and certainly would not aid in her cause. (I believe it amounted to the level of malpractice – but may have been part of some undisclosed strategy to protect his client?)
Things came to a head at an October hearing. Prior to entering the courtroom, I tried approaching mother’s attorney, who’d avoided my calls and emails to discuss the case. He was standoffish. When I mentioned I’d heard he and others had disparaged me behind my back, he panicked, apparently thinking someone had leaked to me about their private ex-parte meeting with the judge he had just left—a disturbing breach of ethical standards. Once court began, the judge revealed their improper ex parte complaints, sternly admonishing the attorneys and asserting that the process was litigious, but that there should be professionalism in the matter. One by one, they attempted to shift blame to me, even alleging I’d yelled at the GAL in mediation—prompting my client to mutter, incredulous, that it was simply untrue. I responded calmly but forcefully, reminding everyone I was there solely to advocate for my client. The judge seemed to understand clearly who was in the wrong. I even apologized to the GAL if she had felt offended, but the offer was accepted coldly and without retort and a turned back.
The Miracle! (Call the Vatican!) Incredibly, the court later learned the youngest autistic daughter—repeatedly labeled “non-verbal” by DCFS and the State and GAL in documents and pleadings—was not only verbal but conversational, engaging actively with the judge in open court at the scheduled disposition hearing where DCFS had failed to filed its required report. It was a stunning and no less miraculous moment, exposing the extent of the State’s, GAL’s, and DCFS’s incompetence or intentional deception.
As the case dragged on, DCFS, the State, and GAL failed again and again to fulfill procedural obligations, including timely filings of required reports and pleadings, and even inappropriate, harmful questioning of the children—at one point shockingly asking my client, in front of his surviving daughter, about my client’s suicide plans. My outrage deepened; these missteps clearly demonstrated DCFS’s disregard for the well-being of the very children they claimed to protect. (My client was never suicidal. It was never as issue in the case; and no mental health report indicated it either.)
Ultimately, though I believed strongly we would win at trial (standing on the back of a recently released appellate case fully setting out the description and findings needed for a ‘dependency’ finding. (ND vs. State, (State ex rel. B.D.) Court of Appeals of Utah August 1, 2024, filed. No. 20230620-CA.), my client chose peace over extended conflict, accepting a nominal dependency finding in exchange for DCFS dropping their false accusations. The mother likewise accepted a neglect finding. (For good reading, read that case.)
At the first scheduled disposition hearing, DCFS attempted to impose additional, unwarranted demands such as domestic violence assessments—never alleged, never substantiated. I objected vigorously, and the court largely sided with us, rebuking DCFS yet again for attempting to place conditions that were not appropriate or germane to the allegations contained in the state’s petition.
By April 2025, DCFS finally recommended closing the case, albeit after further delays and procedural violations. After one last hearing, the case was officially closed.
In the end, my client, the former Marine, stood resolute. He and his ex-wife continue to co-parent successfully, overcoming trauma and tragedy (done with no effort provided by the State.) Despite DCFS’s aggressive overreach, constitutional breaches, and clear political motivations (firearm legislation to secure firearms in homes was prominently debated at the state level during the legislative session), justice prevailed and the clients got the state out of their private lives. I can honestly say that the State only furthered the family grieving process by intruding on the family at a time it needed to heal – not be part of a political and self-serving bureaucratic kumbaya process with little transparency or accountability.
As I reflect on this case, it’s clear how dangerously the juvenile justice system can fail families. DCFS can serve a vital role, but it requires transparency, accountability, and oversight. Families deserve far better than the bureaucratic abuse and costs to fight the abuse we encountered. Parents must document interactions meticulously, involve counsel early, and educate their children on their rights in interactions with school counselors, DCFS agents, or police officers.
Above all, protect your family’s privacy and dignity. Once DCFS becomes involved, as we witnessed, the fight to reclaim your rights and reputation can become monumental—one you cannot afford to lose.