Utah DCFS Worker Christine LaPorte Found Guilty of Misconduct in Adoption
More unethical behavior out of Utah. Surprise! Not! This time a DCFS caseworker, Christine LaPorte, was assigned to a new mom who had just given birth. The mother had previously used drugs and had four children previously removed from her care. The new mom was in a particularly vulnerable situation.
On February 9, 2011, Christine visited the new mother. She then talked about her case to her partner, Monique Mackey. Monique, though also a DCFS case worker is not on the same work team. This breached confidentiality both in the personal and work relationship manner.
Later both DCFS workers (though ONLY Christine was assigned to this mom) visited the new mother’s sister to ask if she would take the child. The sister indicated that she could take the child temporarily and was intending on renting an apartment for her, the new mom and infant to share. Both Christine and Monique discouraged her from rooming with the mother and child!
Then the prosecutor says Monique contacted the Utah attorney general and falsely identified herself as the caseworker and gave false information about the new mom. She asked to have the case screened. The attorney general then said that the child should be in state custody with no reunification plan. [Since when does the AG get involved in specific custody cases? ]
Christine and Monique proceeded to go to the hospital to tell the new mom that the baby would be taken into custody with no hope of reunification. They instructed the nursing staff to cut off contact between the mom and baby. The nursing staff complied.
Mackey (already an adoptive mother and former law enforcement officer) and the mom had a private conversation outside the hospital while the mom smoked a cigarette. The prosecutor said that it was at this time that Monique told the mom that they could arrange a private open adoption and that Monique would be a stay-at-home mom.
After the cigarette break, the new mom told Christine that she wanted to pursue a private adoption. “LaPorte said it was only when she spoke moments later to a hospital social worker that she realized Mackay was adopting the baby….
Hospital staff, who knew Mackay was a caseworker, also asked whether there was an ethical concern since DCFS was prepared to take custody of the infant, Huff said. But Mackay told them there was no problem since she was merely there as a trainer and it was worth losing her job to get a baby, Huff said.
“Hospital staff tried one more time to overcome the clear ethical problem,” Huff said.
Unaware of the relationship between the two women, staff asked LaPorte whether DCFS was OK with Mackay stepping in to adopt the baby, Huff said, and the answer was yes.
In fact, DCFS would have given the mother a chance to parent the child, Huff said. Drug tests on the infant were negative and the mother’s test was positive only for marijuana.
The mom “should have had the system in support of her,” Huff [prosecutor] said, but because of Mackay’s actions, that didn’t happen. “The system failed to protect and preserve [this] family.”
Monique picked up the baby the next day and had the baby for one week before someone ratted them out to DCFS.
“[O]n Feb. 17, 2011, the division placed both women on leave while it investigated; it also took custody of the infant. Murray City prosecutors launched a criminal investigation of the women.
In March, a jury acquitted LaPorte of official misconduct, a class B misdemeanor. A different jury found Mackay guilty of the same charge. Both women lost their jobs.
At a sentencing hearing last week , Huff told Justice Court Judge Paul Thompson that Mackay had abused her power to “break this family up.” She asked the judge to send Mackay to jail for six months to “help her understand what she’s done.”
Whining
“LaPorte said she believes her and Mackay’s sexual orientation led the division and the city prosecutor to target them. She also claims Mackay’s rights were violated when, as the infant’s legal guardian, she wasn’t allowed to participate in a shelter hearing to decide what was best for the baby once it was removed from her care.
The mother stated, while free of drugs or coercion, to numerous people at the hospital that she wanted Mackay to adopt the baby, LaPorte said. She added that the division policies are unclear and “very broad reaching.”
“I understand if DCFS believes what we did was uncomfortable for them,” LaPorte said. “If it was policy, that’s their right [to terminate the caseworkers] but violating a policy is not a crime, being a lesbian or a gay man is not a crime, adopting as a single person is not a crime, the mom had the right to give her baby up to private adoption, and that is not a crime. … Monique was doing what she felt was in the best interest of the baby.”
Suspended Sentence and Kinship Care
“The judge suspended Mackay’s six-month jail sentence and gave her one-year probation, 48 hours of community service and a fine of $882.
In its investigation, DCFS found the women’s version of events did not hold up and that they had violated numerous policies, including confidentiality, since Mackay wasn’t assigned to the case.
And contrary to the caseworkers’ assertions, family was willing to take custody of the baby — and did so after he was removed from the women’s home.”
Caseworker crossed ethical line in pursuing adoption, DCFS says
[The Salt Lake Tribune 5/13/12 by Brooke Adams]
REFORM Puzzle Pieces
If both parties agreed to a private adoption,whats the problem? Do we need “Big Brother’ sitting on our stoop and telling us what is right fur us? Get a Life!
You seem to have missed all the points of this story. The mother was threatened with having her baby removed and then coerced into a private adoption unknowingly to the very caseworker that was assigned to her. Completely unethical! If there was an ethical caseworker, the child temporarily would have been taken into DCFS care and assigned to the *relative* to begin with. This case highlights how people involved in child protection are on the lookout for babies to give to whomever they want (in this case, to themselves). This isn’t about Big Brother, but demanding that every time there is a child-centered placement. Kinship placements should always be considered. If they are not safe, then stranger-care would be necessary.
When private adoption was suggested to the mother as an option,the light came on. this option had never been discussed before because prior case workers were too lazy to offer this option.The mother should be given complete and accurate information so she has the opportunity to make the best decision for her child. Why is the state better qualified to make the mothers choice?
The state was making all the choices here and preventing family from assisting. The mom’s sister was willing to take the child and mother in but was discouraged by the ONE and only caseworker assigned for THIS case-the same caseworker that wanted the baby for herself.
Do you not see the abuse of power in Christine phoning the AG in this case to persuade for NO reunification? And taking her out of the hospital to discuss private adoption while not disclosing that she and her partner were going to be the parents? If you can’t see that, then you have no hope of seeing the corruption issues here. Truly shocking that you can read all of these red flags and conclude the mother was freely making the decision to adopt the child to the caseworker. The STATE inserted itself into the mother’s life from the get-go.
If I am reading your article correctly, after finding out about private adoption, the mother made a choice for private placement. The adoptive mother, not the case worker as indicated in your article,made an agreement to adopt the baby. Two private parties making a private adoption contract. Those agreements are made all the time..Hence big brother moves-in to void the agreement. What power big brother has! What is the underlying motivation? Being a businessman, thos types of issues would have been handeled internally. I would suggest that a written contract between two adults should be binding. Those issues go back to common law and are the basis of our legal system. Hidden agenda–Absoutely!
Well you didn’t read the article correctly nor did you answer my questions. Adoption was not even being considered. The sister wanted to live with BOTH the mother and baby. The caseworkers wanted the baby for themselves. So first came the threat of taking the baby into stranger care and then an end run was done so the caseworker could secure the baby for herself. She even went to the extreme to ask the AG to intervene to stop any reunification! Where does THAT fit into your common law private adoption contract position? Clearly you don’t want to even look at coercion issues. Do you realize that this kind of coercion occurs in hospitals still?
Your bold headline said Ms.Laporte was guilty of misconduct in an adoption scheme and the article stated that the jury acquitted her. Which is it? Do you get your cake and eat it too..If someone is found not guilty by a jury, what gives you the right to be judge and jury. Why do you feel that it your responbility to make public slanderous statements about your personal feelings. Seems to me you need to get a life and let the courts do their job.
Both. “In March, a jury acquitted LaPorte of official misconduct, a class B misdemeanor. A different jury found Mackay guilty of the same charge. Both women lost their jobs” The second part about a different jury finding her guilty and them both losing their jobs are the key statements. Most of these cases are complex. YOu need to read all the words through your emotions.
Her sentence was “The judge suspended Mackay’s six-month jail sentence and gave her one-year probation, 48 hours of community service and a fine of $882.”
All of this is in my post. Headline is true. I guess I CAN get my cake and eat it too.
Are you sure it was a different jury? I think a very important point is being ignored.What about the baby. Case in point. Birth mother and potential adoptive mother stipulated on an adoption agreement. Birth mothers continued involvement in childs development not defined. Adoptive mother took child home, to what I assume to be a safe environment, and started the bonding process with the child. Big Brother enters the home and removes the child and puts the child in a “temporary” family placement. From that temporary placement the child goes to a foster environment until adoption. Now four to ten months have gone by and the child who would have had a stable and safe environment during those months missed out on a critical development period of his life. Child development experts believe that early childhood is extremely important as related to adult personality and behivor. Again I wonder, what is the underlying agenda? A good reporter with a thrist for the truth would look past the surface and get her hands dirty.
I want to slap this lady. Wow. She missed every stop the bus made.
I worked with one of these two women on the special olympice and found her to be very professional. I contacted a friend who works in law enforcement and asked if he knew anything about the case. My contact worked in the metro gang unit for six years and has quite a few contacts at juvenine justice. By asking a few questions he confirmed that the baby in this case was promised to a adoptive family in the Riverton/Herriman area before the baby was taken into DCFS custody. That does not sound like a proper procedure to adopt a child. What do you think? My officer friend said he could contact the family to confirm but I suggested that the attorneys make that contact. If there is a breakdonw in the system and the AGs office is involved it could cause issues with the coming election. The same source also contacted the two superviors 0f thes two workers and found that both women had steller work records. The had worked togeather on the Schoup homicide in Layton and five or six other cases resulting in childrens death. They worked with other workers on numerous child physical and sexul abuse cases. Case in point, just because a case worker is the “assidned case manager” doesnot mean that other workers are not involved. One supervisor said that is more common to have more than one worker on a case than not. Really dosen’t take a lot of effort to find out what is really going on if you want to take the time and ask the right people.
Why do I get the feeling that “Name” is actually Monique or Christine? First you try to claim no laws were broken, when they were. The two workers broke ethics when Christine allowed Monique to attend the interview with the new mother, the mother’s sister, and when she told the sister that DCFS wouldn’t allow her to live with the baby’s mother. They also got the attorney general involved by trying to get the AG to rule the mother incompetent WITHOUT A TRIAL. It’s not that hard to understand that these two workers tried to go above and around the law.
TRB. Might be true. I think we have established that the caseworkers conspired to effect an illegal private adoption and deserved to lose their jobs. No reciting of facts will change “Name”‘s position. When logic is lost on one person all additional discussion will be futile.
You think you know all the facts–You don’t. Had there been an investigation, which there was not, and the bitrh mother spoken with she would have told the investigator her distrust of DCFS and their placement procedures. It may shock you to know that DCFS workers work in pairs and even teams quite frequently. In this particular case the sister had refused kinship placemrnt unless the mother would move-in and make some drastic changes in her life–not going to happen. Exactly what law was broken? Is it wrong to provide a safe environment for a child, not attached to big brother(DCFS) in a normal family unit? Your publication is about at risk children, how much safer could a child be than being raised by someone with adoption experience?
Are you Christine? You sound like it.No one mentioned that it was “shocking” or anything of the like that 2 DCSF workers may collaborate. What we did say was that having 2 DCFS workers in a relationship who want to adopt is a MAJOR conflict of interest and going to the AG to get him involved is ridiculous. I have no understanding of your question about placement without “big brother”. These workers WERE DCFS and using their position to coerce. End of story. Convicted correctly.Your strawmen are lame.
You dont have your facts straight. Had you paid attention to previous comments, you should have read where it was the Birth Mother that proposed a private adoption to the DCFS after she was made aware of that option. The DCSF worker was not the mothers case worker, and their interaction was a result of another issue involving hospital security. What you are saying is that a DCFS worker cannot adopt a child unless the do that adoption through BIG BROTHER. What has happened to our Constitution, Bill of Rights and all the other founding docuements that our country has fought for. When you go to work for DCFS is it required you hang your NADS at the door when you sign on? Your implying that these workers hav no rights unless BIG BROTHER say that they do. REALLY–oh and by-the-way my strawmen are doing well–thank you
You are very slow. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is not about any DCFS worker involved in any case. This is about a very specific one who operated unethically and was found guilty.This has nothing to do with the Constitution, Bill of Rights or all the founding documents in this country. YOu haven’t a clue what coercion is.
Having worked at DCFS in Utah I just wanted to clarify one thing you seem to not be aware of. The AG’s office has several Assistant AG’s across the state and they are involved with every potential case that a CPS worker goes out to visit to determine if a case needs to be open. If a case is to be opened the AG is consulted to determine if the case will involve the courts or if a case can be a co-operative case or there isn’t enough to go forward with a legal case. So while the State AG is typically not involved the Assistant AG’s across the state are involved and typically refereed to as the AG.
That aside the rest of what appears to have happened is very underhanded and extremely unethical. Cases are staffed between those in the same office and team, outside offices or teams are only included under the direction of a supervisor. Taking your life partner to a visit is completely wrong unless that person is part of the team which is quite rare due to the possible conflicts.
Just know there are many hard working extremely ethical caseworkers in the field working hard every day to keep children safe and to strengthen families. In my previous caseworker we always tried to find ways to keep children in the home or with their parents by bringing in various supports like a family member living with the family at either the parents or family members home. We also had increased visits such as weekly or even twice a week in some cases as well as increased outside agency visits with families to keep children in their home or return them earlier. By the time I left the division about half of my foster care caseload was kinship placements and we had many more in home cases than foster cases percentage wise than we did when I started about 5 years earlier.
Glad that the division looked at this case and took action.
I am not putting words in your mouth–the only thing in your mouth is your foot. I don’t care about any DCFS workers, what I care about is justice. My understanding of coercion is when two or more individuals get togeather to formulate a plan–also called premeditation. Nothing you have written makes me believe that this was premediated or even preplanned. An opportunity given–perhaps.Illegal–I doubt it. What is unethical behavior vs illegal acts? Your opinion
Last time I try to explain this to you.
First of all, she was CONVICTED of Illegal Misconduct. You ask what crime over and over and keep wrongly saying that this is my opinion. No, she was convicted. Specifically the crime is “76-8-201. Official misconduct — Unauthorized acts or failure of duty.
A public servant is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, with an intent to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office. ”
You obviously don’t want to listen that the “benefit” is obtaining the baby for herself and her partner.
Since you did not read the article or post I will spell it out where the premeditation as you call it comes into play:
(1)Discussing the case with her partner breached confidentiality both in the personal and work relationship manner. This is step one of the premeditation.
(2)They instructed the nursing staff to cut off contact between the mom and baby. Step 2. This is unethical, immoral and sets up the coercion. It leads the mother to believe that she cannot have her child, which is completely false in this case as the article quotes “In fact, DCFS would have given the mother a chance to parent the child, Huff said. Drug tests on the infant were negative and the mother’s test was positive only for marijuana.”
(3) Monique, the partner who should NEVER have known the details then called the AG and LIED (again unethical and immoral) I don’t want to hear how LYING is somehow ethical in your world.
(4) The last lines that I quoted explain why they BOTH were fired “In its investigation, DCFS found the women’s version of events did not hold up and that they had violated numerous policies, including confidentiality, since Mackay wasn’t assigned to the case.
And contrary to the caseworkers’ assertions, family was willing to take custody of the baby — and did so after he was removed from the women’s home.”
There were multiple policy violations, so they did not do their job in the manner of their policies.
YES Illegal, not “opportunity” as you unbelievably have characterized this case.
I think how all of this was handled is wrong and I’m glad they lost there job and we don’t totally know if the mother of the infant wanted to give up the child or not!….
oh wow! that’s so funny! it’s got to be her. This woman is stupid and it’s just funny that u figured that out. I love it