Lewis
Member
- Aug 5, 2005
- 15,483
- 621
Let me ask you all a question, don't you think that old grand parents should have a right to their grand kids ? What gives the state the right to take this boy away, and they can only see him on supervised visits, and they cannot talk about the case. People in the Philly area are very mad about this including me. But here is the story below.
Ronnie Polaneczky | Here's a court order that makes me gag
IT'S OUTRAGEOUS ENOUGH that Mildred and Morris Brasovankin have lost the privilege of close, frequent contact with their 5-year-old grandson, Steven, with whom they've had a loving relationship since his birth.
But, as of last week, they also have lost the right to comment on the legal proceedings that have caused their heartache, thanks to a gag order imposed by Family Court Judge Ann Butchart.
Gee, what's the court going to take from this wonderful old couple next - their right to cry over what's happened to them?
Butchart didn't return a call for comment, but Family Court Administrative Judge Kevin Dougherty told me that the gag order in the case is meant to protect the privacy of Steven and of his biological parents.
But we already know an awful lot about this case.
We know that Steven was born prematurely to a drug-addicted mother and a father who couldn't care for him.
That he lived for two years with a loving foster family, who maintained a warm relationship with the Brasovankins, his paternal grandparents, and who dearly wanted to adopt Steven.
That the family's hearts were broken when the boy's dad regained custody of his son.
That last spring, young Steven was taken from his mentally unstable father's custody, temporarily placed with Mildred and Morris - who are 85 and 89 - then taken from them before his placement period with them expired.
That Steven was placed with yet another foster family, that the Brasovankins are allowed just one hour of supervised time with their grandson per week and that they have been working frantically ever since for Steven to be returned to their care.
Since we already know all of this, what's really going on with the gag order?
Given the now-zipped lips in this case, I was left to speculate about the gag order with family-law attorney Lynne Gold-Bikin, whom I called for her 2 cents.
She gave me a dollar's worth.
"I'm always suspicious when a judge issues a gag order, especially when the case involves something as outrageous as keeping grandparents from seeing their grandchild," said Gold-Bikin, herself a doting grandmother of 10 who'd "go crazy if someone told me I could have only one hour of supervised time per week with my grandchildren."
In this case, "The gag order prevents anyone from second-guessing the judge's decisions. But if she believes in her decisions, what does she care what anyone says? It just looks odd, unfortunate and embarrassing."
Dougherty said that, in general, gag orders are rare; in fact, he doesn't recall issuing one in his judicial career.
Temple law professor Edward Ohlbaum says gag orders most often are issued in criminal cases to keep jurors from hearing information that, in a courtroom, would be considered inadmissible, unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory.
"This seems unusual, given that there's no jury in the case," said Ohlbaum about the Brasovankin situation, hastening to add that there may be "various considerations, about which we know nothing, that motivated the judge to issue the gag ruling."
Complicating matters is that, in Philly, outsiders are banned from Family Court proceedings (which is not the case in family courts elsewhere, by the way).
The ban's noble intent? To preserve family privacy.
Its convenient fallout? Judicial decisions rarely are scrutinized publicly.
Unless, of course, people like the Brasovankins and their lawyers bring them to the media's attention. Once you've told your story on "Good Morning America," the way the Brasovankins did before the gag order, the public scrutiny comes in spades.
As well it should in this instance. The outcome of the Brasovankin case could have huge implications for the 21,400 grandparents in Philadelphia who are caring for their grandchildren - not to mention the 2.4 million grandparents nationally who step in to care for their children's children when drug addiction, mental illness, incarceration, military service and myriad other factors bring chaos to a child's life.
Given their age and frailties, I'm not saying the Brasovankins deserve to care for their grandson without guidance from the court.
But given that their love for him has been the only constant in his short life, they deserve, at the very least, to speak their minds publicly about what is going on in his life right now. *
E-mail polaner@phillynews.com or call 215-854-2217. For recent columns:
http://go.philly.com/polaneczky
Ronnie Polaneczky | Here's a court order that makes me gag
IT'S OUTRAGEOUS ENOUGH that Mildred and Morris Brasovankin have lost the privilege of close, frequent contact with their 5-year-old grandson, Steven, with whom they've had a loving relationship since his birth.
But, as of last week, they also have lost the right to comment on the legal proceedings that have caused their heartache, thanks to a gag order imposed by Family Court Judge Ann Butchart.
Gee, what's the court going to take from this wonderful old couple next - their right to cry over what's happened to them?
Butchart didn't return a call for comment, but Family Court Administrative Judge Kevin Dougherty told me that the gag order in the case is meant to protect the privacy of Steven and of his biological parents.
But we already know an awful lot about this case.
We know that Steven was born prematurely to a drug-addicted mother and a father who couldn't care for him.
That he lived for two years with a loving foster family, who maintained a warm relationship with the Brasovankins, his paternal grandparents, and who dearly wanted to adopt Steven.
That the family's hearts were broken when the boy's dad regained custody of his son.
That last spring, young Steven was taken from his mentally unstable father's custody, temporarily placed with Mildred and Morris - who are 85 and 89 - then taken from them before his placement period with them expired.
That Steven was placed with yet another foster family, that the Brasovankins are allowed just one hour of supervised time with their grandson per week and that they have been working frantically ever since for Steven to be returned to their care.
Since we already know all of this, what's really going on with the gag order?
Given the now-zipped lips in this case, I was left to speculate about the gag order with family-law attorney Lynne Gold-Bikin, whom I called for her 2 cents.
She gave me a dollar's worth.
"I'm always suspicious when a judge issues a gag order, especially when the case involves something as outrageous as keeping grandparents from seeing their grandchild," said Gold-Bikin, herself a doting grandmother of 10 who'd "go crazy if someone told me I could have only one hour of supervised time per week with my grandchildren."
In this case, "The gag order prevents anyone from second-guessing the judge's decisions. But if she believes in her decisions, what does she care what anyone says? It just looks odd, unfortunate and embarrassing."
Dougherty said that, in general, gag orders are rare; in fact, he doesn't recall issuing one in his judicial career.
Temple law professor Edward Ohlbaum says gag orders most often are issued in criminal cases to keep jurors from hearing information that, in a courtroom, would be considered inadmissible, unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory.
"This seems unusual, given that there's no jury in the case," said Ohlbaum about the Brasovankin situation, hastening to add that there may be "various considerations, about which we know nothing, that motivated the judge to issue the gag ruling."
Complicating matters is that, in Philly, outsiders are banned from Family Court proceedings (which is not the case in family courts elsewhere, by the way).
The ban's noble intent? To preserve family privacy.
Its convenient fallout? Judicial decisions rarely are scrutinized publicly.
Unless, of course, people like the Brasovankins and their lawyers bring them to the media's attention. Once you've told your story on "Good Morning America," the way the Brasovankins did before the gag order, the public scrutiny comes in spades.
As well it should in this instance. The outcome of the Brasovankin case could have huge implications for the 21,400 grandparents in Philadelphia who are caring for their grandchildren - not to mention the 2.4 million grandparents nationally who step in to care for their children's children when drug addiction, mental illness, incarceration, military service and myriad other factors bring chaos to a child's life.
Given their age and frailties, I'm not saying the Brasovankins deserve to care for their grandson without guidance from the court.
But given that their love for him has been the only constant in his short life, they deserve, at the very least, to speak their minds publicly about what is going on in his life right now. *
E-mail polaner@phillynews.com or call 215-854-2217. For recent columns:
http://go.philly.com/polaneczky
