How Could You? Hall of Shame-George and Bette McFetridge UPDATED

This will be an archive of heinous actions by those involved in child welfare, foster care and adoption. We forewarn you that these are deeply disturbing stories that may involve sex abuse, murder, kidnapping and other horrendous actions.

From Bakersfield, California, a case of a foster and adoptive mother who shaved her 12-year-old daughter’s head as punishment has had her case closed by California child welfare authorities.

The Press will likely not cover this case again so we are archiving it here.

The girl was adopted with her brother and has two younger siblings. It is not clear if the younger kids are foster children or adoptive children. The adoptive mother is a licensed foster parent still.

When the girl was 11 years old, she asked her adoptive parents about her biological parents because her younger two siblings have relationships with their biological parents. The adoptive parents refused to give her information and THEN she began acting out. She stole and iPod and makeup from other family members and when she wore a spaghetti-strapped shirt to school (a violation) and she received some type of conduct slip, she forged her mother’s name. Grounding the girl did not deter the girl’s misbehavior. Then, the mom found the missing makeup in the girl’s backpack. She asked the girl if there was anything in the backpack that was not hers as a test to see if she would lie. The girl lied. Supposedly in a calm fashion, the mother took her to the bathroom, took clippers and shaved her head. One-inch fuzz that was irregularly cut was left on her head. The mother claimed that she did this because she knew that is one thing that the girl cared about.

The article says that “The little girl was constantly combing and styling it.

She was “not trying to humiliate her, but her hair is all she cares about.” Sandy (not the APs real name) admitted that she knew it would “piss her off,” according to the social worker’s report.”

When the girl went to school with a hat on the next day, school officials confronted her because hats are not allowed.That is when the school asked what happened and got involved. They called DCFS. The social worker concluded that “emotional abuse” was “substantiated”. The social worker’s supervisor came to the same conclusion.

The adoptive mother appealed the decision to the DCFS grievance board. A reason for the appeal was that the adoptive mother did not want anything on her record to prevent her from teaching children at her church.

Though the girl and family members told DCFS that hair-cutting (but not shaving) was punishment for the girl before, they did not admit that during the grievance hearing.

The officer ruled that the evidence was “inconclusive” due to inability to prove that the emotional abuse was ongoing. There is no mechanism for DCFS to followup with this as this is an adoption case. Psychological testing or mandatory counseling on the adoptive parent cannot be ordered and the child does not get a GAL or other representation. If the child was in foster care, these things could have been mandated.

This case highlights how hard it is to follow up on and remediate any abuse in adoptive families.

As for “ongoing” abuse, it will take more than a year for her hair to grow out, so the humiliation will continue for her.

The part about wanting to know about the biological family is at the beginning of the radio interview and adds another layer to this. The report does not specify if she was domestically or internationally adopted.

Shaving child’s head isn’t abuse. Seriously?
[The Bakersfield Californian 8/21/11 by Lois Henry]

http://www.bakersfield.com/CalifornianRadio/x2117088867/Californian-Radio-August-22-2011
[California Radio SmartTalk 1230 show 8/22/11 with guest Lois Henry]

Update: Another news station picked up this story.

“According to the social worker report, obtained by Henry, the mother was “not trying to humiliate her, but her hair is all she cares about.”

Henry said, Human Services Director, Pat Cheadle, ultimately ruled this case doesn’t constitute child abuse. Cheadle won’t confirm or deny this case, but she said for the department to legally prove a child has been emotionally abused, there must be changes in the child’s behavior specifically related to an incident.

“Someone who normally has lots of friends socially and now they are in the corner eating by themselves there is a number of things we are obligated to look at to determine if that act has resulted in a disturbed change of behavior,” Pat Cheadle, Director of Kern County Human Services, said.

Social workers legally have 30 days to wrap up their investigations, but psychologist, Corey Gonzales, said effects of emotional abuse can manifest in a child over time.

“Shaving someone’s head certainly wouldn’t be the first line of discipline in this situation particularly a young female at that adolescent age,” Gonzales said. “There is so much socially going on that could be absolutely humiliating for a young girl to go to junior high with a shaved head.”

Is shaving your 12-year-old daughter’s head child abuse?
[KGET 8/24/11]

Update 2: Names and other details now can be connected as the adoptive parents have filed a lawsuit. The dad is a county PROSECUTOR. No wonder the reporter didn’t want to name names originally.

The girl, identified only as “Holly” is older than last year’s report indicated. She was 15 at the time of the incident and is now 18.

“A year after George and Bette McFetridge adopted a troubled teenage girl, the Irvine couple contends, her behavior grew increasingly disconcerting. She neglected her grades, kept company with grown men and ran away repeatedly.

On her camera, the Orange County deputy district attorney and his wife found a photograph of a pentagram, and of words written on pavement: “Torture.” “Agony.”

To punish her for lying about her whereabouts, Bette McFetridge took a pair of scissors and cut off locks of the girls’ hair in early 2008 — a snip for each lie.

The “tough love” punishment led to an allegation of emotional abuse that a social worker deemed “inconclusive” but nevertheless landed the couple on the state’s Child Abuse Central Index, where they remained for 11 months.

Now, the McFetridges are suing the Orange County Social Services Agency and Bridget Hannegan, the veteran social worker who handled their case. They allege their inclusion on the list damaged their reputations, stigmatizing them as child abusers, and that they were not afforded due process to fight the label.

Though George McFetridge is a county prosecutor, he is bringing the lawsuit as a private citizen and representing himself in court. In the suit, he alleges the social worker’s confidential report about the case was forwarded to the district attorney’s office, damaging his reputation, and that having his name on the abuse index impeded his attempt to become a court appointed special advocate.

In Orange County Superior Court on Friday, he told jurors that he used to prosecute child abuse cases in California and Nevada. “I have sent people to prison for child abuse,” he said. Of himself and his wife, he added: “We are experienced, successful parents.”

The girl, referred to in court only as “Holly,” was 15 at the time of the hair-cutting incident. McFetridge said that his wife, concerned about their daughter’s behavior, issued multiple warnings to tell the truth or risk punishment. After each lie, she cut another strand. “She cut a third strand, and then Holly started telling the truth,” he told jurors. “We made a breakthrough.”

He said he received a letter in April 2008 that he and his wife had been reported to the abuse index, but 12 weeks passed before he was able to see the social worker’s report. He said the social worker falsely alleged the girl’s hair was cut to within an inch of her scalp, leaving silver dollar-sized chunks missing.

The girl is now 18 and no longer living with the McFetridges, who acknowledge the adoption failed. “We’re Facebook friends,” Mr. McFetridge told jurors.

The couple is seeking $28,000 they spent to send the girl to a residential program, plus $1 a month for each month they spent on the abuse index.

Daniel Spradlin, attorney for the Social Services Agency and the social worker, told jurors the agency’s actions were “reasonable and appropriate.”

He described the girl as “a very emotionally troubled child,” adding: “Nobody is saying Mr. and Mrs. McFetridge are bad people.… Maybe they did not appreciate how deep her troubles were.” He said the girl believed herself a failure in her parents’ eyes. “Mom wanted a daughter who was an avid reader,” he said, which the girl was not.

Spradlin said Mrs. McFetridge grew resentful that the girl did not seem to appreciate the life they were trying to give her. He said the girl “had nothing” when they adopted her, but that her appearance — particularly her hair — was a large part of her identity.

“They used what the child’s most precious possession was” to discipline her, he said.

The case is expected to continue next week.”

Parents suing over listing on child abuse index
[Los Angeles TImes 2/4/11 by Christopher Goffard]

REFORM Puzzle Piece

The adoptive mother was expecting the girl to be an avid reader and to appreciate them. This is not the kind of person that should be adopting.

Update 3:  The adoptive parents LOST the lawsuit. The jury voted 9 to 3 against them.

“A jury voted 9-3 in favor of the worker in the suit filed by Orange County Deputy District Attorney George McFetridge Jr. and his wife Bette, City News Service reported.

The couple alleged they were wrongly placed on the state’s Child Abuse Central Index for 11 months by social worker Bridget Hannegan, and that the stigma hurt McFetridge’s reputation and impeded his effort to become a court-appointed special advocate.

McFetridge, who represented himself in the case, said the couple adopted a troubled 14-year-old girl from Las Vegas in 2007 in the hopes of giving her a better life. When the girl began running away from home a year later and lying about her whereabouts, McFetridge said his wife cut off locks of her hair as punishment.

In April 2008, McFetridge received a letter from the county’s social services agency indicating they had been named in a child abuse report sent to the index.

McFetridge said a copy of the confidential report was forwarded to his employer.

McFetridge said his name was cleared 11 months later. He filed the suit in an effort to prevent social workers from sending such reports to the state without first giving parents a chance to respond, except in cases where the child’s safety is at risk, according to court papers.

Jurors deliberated about a day and a half before reaching the verdict in favor of Hannegan.

“Basically it came down to whether it was intentional or malicious,” juror Mark Parsons told City News Service. “We felt she was doing her job to the best of her abilities.”

McFetridge initially sued the county’s social services agency, but a judge excluded the agency from the suit.

The girl, who is now 19, no longer lives with the McFetridges.

Messages seeking comment were left for McFetridge and Daniel Spradlin, who represented Hannegan and the county.”

Couple loses suit over listing on abuse index
[San Francisco Chronicle 2/15/12 by Associated Press]