A Google search reveals numerous postings speculating that the current policy of forced separation might be a form of child abuse. Might be. Few are willing to emphatically state that it is child abuse stating that symptoms of abuse might arise at some future time. So the standard seems to be that abuse cannot be charged until it is demonstrated in the future. Most call upon Congress to do something now.
Are there any experts on this sort of thing? Certainly not a politician. Probably not a federal court. Who might know? I’d put my confidence in social workers and judges who decide child custody challenges every day. They have intimate knowledge of the environments and conditions that cause lasting damage and work to prevent it. The prevailing standard is, “The best interests of the child”. Custodial decisions are routinely evaluated and decided based upon the perceived best interests standard. The government says it is enforcing immigration law. It is also making child custody determinations.
To be sure the process is inexact and fraught with bias and sloppy procedure in some areas. But it is the only arena in which these circumstances are routinely examined and decided. It is not hard to imagine that many social workers and family court judges view the current practice as ongoing child abuse. The development of symptoms at some future time is not necessary in order to make an informed decision. In fact the prevention of harm is as important as the response to harm after the fact.
Whether or not abuse is being perpetrated by the government isn’t a hard call to make. It is. The problem is that the process is being adjudicated in the wrong arena. The adult parents of these children belong in immigration court. Since the custody of the children has been terminated or suspended by the government the custodial question belongs in a jurisdiction equipped to decide custody.
All mandated reporters should flood the court with the demand that the perpetrators of abuse need to be evaluated and judged within the appropriate venue. The DOJ is not exempt from it’s mandate to take proper care of these children. The actions of the DOJ are exactly equivalent to the actions of a prison guard who knowingly harms an individual in the care of the system in order to advance an agenda that runs counter to the primary responsibility.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw is based in San Diego.