( Court Involvement) Because of the safety concerns, the worker checked with a legal consultant in the agency and was told to prepare a complete W865d. Once this was reviewed, it was decided there were sufficient grounds for a neglect petition (Article 10) against Mr. M. The worker completed a COI (Court Ordered Investigation) and the court date was scheduled for 7/20. At the initial hearing Ms M. was assigned an 18B lawyer, and the case was adjourned for a week. Mr. M. refused to attend either court hearing. When he talked with the worker, he said a friend who works for ACS told him there was something wrong with this hearing. “What is this court date about?” When the worker explained the hearing involves the safety concerns ACS has about his children, he responded: “I know my wife must have reported that while we were on vacation, I hit my kids. She’s angry and reported that I hit them in the US because she wants me arrested.” When the worker asked if he could explain what happened, he said, “We went on vacation and she disrespected me by going on a date with another man… I was fighting with my wife and I took off my belt and hit my kids. I know I hit them, but I don’t abuse my kids.” The worker told him it was in his best interest to go to the court hearing. She also informed him that an Order of Protection has been issued, which means he must not contact them, go to their residence or the children’s school. He is to make no contact and is to stay away from them.
At the 856 hearing on 7/20, the children were paroled to their mother on condition of weekly ACS supervision with announced and unannounced visits. Respondent father
was to have supervised visitation with the children upon consent of the law guardian. And children were to be evaluated, especially for play therapy. (The children did not want to see their father at this time, but it was hoped they would be able to move beyond this incident once they were enrolled in therapy). At the Article 10 hearing on 8/8, the earlier orders were continued. No decision was made because Mr. M. did not have an attorney; and the judge said he could not have a court-appointed lawyer because of his income. The hearing was continued until 8/20. When he appeared at this hearing, Mr. M. still did not have an attorney. The judge
informed him if he appeared again without a lawyer, he would have to represent himself.