90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Corrupt Juvenile Justice Leaves Mark On Pa. Kids

Former Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella (left) and Michael Conahan (right) were convicted in 2011 of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youth offenders to for-profit detention facilities. They are both pictured leaving the federal courthouse in Scranton, Pa. in February 2009. (David Kidwell/AP)

Former Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella (left) and Michael Conahan (right) were convicted in 2011 of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youth offenders to for-profit detention facilities. They are pictured leaving the federal courthouse in Scranton, Pa. in February 2009. (David Kidwell/AP)

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist William Ecenbarger tells a story that seems to be pulled right from Charles Dickens: a judge sends young people to a detention center, in exchange for kickbacks from the facility’s owner.

The judge was Mark Ciavarella and he presided over a courtroom in Luzerne County, Pa. He sent thousands of kids to detention centers for minor offenses – things that used to result in a three-day suspension from class.

William Ecenbarger is author of "Kids for Cash." (Susan Ecenbarger)

William Ecenbarger is author of “Kids for Cash.” (Susan Ecenbarger)

Luzerne County’s president judge, Michael Conahan, was also implicated in the “Kids for Cash” scandal, for using his budgetary discretion to stop funding the county’s public youth detention facility. He also agreed to generate costs that could be billed to taxpayers in exchange for kickbacks.

Prosecutors say the two judges secretly received more than $2.6 million in kickbacks. In 2011, Ciavarella was sentenced to 28 years in federal prison and Conahan was sentenced to 17.5 years.

Ecenbarger covered the case for The Philadelphia Inquirer. His new book, “Kids for Cash: Two Judges, Thousands of Children, and a $2.6 Million Kickback Scheme,” details not only the case, but the stories of children whose lives were forever changed by the courtroom corruption.

Do you see problems with juvenile justice or a “school-to-prisons pipeline” where you live? Let us know in the comments section or on our Facebook page.

Book Excerpt: ‘Kids for Cash’

By: William Ecenbarger

"Kids for Cash" book cover

“Kids for Cash” book cover

Chapter One

Matthew, Angelia, Lisa, and Charlie

At the age of thirteen, Matthew was a quiet boy whose benign, gentle features seemed to demand that a violin be placed in his hands. But inside, the seventh-grader was strung taut between his mother and his father, who had been in a protracted custody battle over him since he was ten. Four days after Thanksgiving 2004, Matthew got into a disagreement with his mother’s boy­friend. There was some shoving and angry words, but it wasn’t much of a contest. Matthew stood four foot three and weighed eighty-two pounds. His adversary was six foot two and weighed about 210 pounds.

No one was injured in the momentary scuffle. Nevertheless, his mother called the police, and an officer came to Matthew’s bedroom, pushed him against the wall, and jabbed a finger at him: “You think you’re tough, but you’re not. I’ve dealt with people like you before, and it’s no big deal.” Then his mother told the officer that Matthew had thrown a piece of steak at her beau, and she wanted to file assault charges against her son.

A month later, three days after Christmas, Matthew was in the dark-paneled Courtroom four of the Luzerne County Court­house. He was accompanied by his father and the lawyer his father had retained. Matthew had been assured that even if he was found guilty, his punishment would be light because he had no prior record of offenses. The boy knew he had done nothing wrong, and he believed the justice system would work and treat him fairly. Even so, Matthew’s senses were on full alert because he was standing before Judge Mark A. Ciavarella, who had already spoken at Matthew’s school three times and warned students that he would be tough on any child who came to his courtroom.

The lawyer told Ciavarella that the incident was part of an ongoing dispute between Matthew’s parents, and he asked that Matthew be placed in his father’s custody. But his mother and her boyfriend testified that Matthew had thrown the steak. Matthew kept shifting his feet and pushing his glasses up the bridge of his nose. Ciavarella doodled absently on a scratch pad during the tes­timony and seemed to regard the entire proceeding as an intru­sion. Finally, the judge turned to Matthew and asked if he threw the piece of meat. Matthew, his voice squeaky with adolescence, said he had not. Words of explanation formed in his throat, but Ciavarella cut him off and said, “Remanded!” The word hung in the air for a few seconds. Matthew, bewildered, didn’t even know what it meant.

Suddenly, two officers, each grabbing an elbow, were escort­ing all eighty-two pounds of him to an adjacent holding room. He was saucer-eyed with disbelief as they patted him down for weapons. Then they were putting handcuffs on his wrists and shackles on his ankles. Both sets of restraints were attached to a belt around his waist. His mouth went cottony with fear, and he started crying. The restraints were too tight and little darts of pain shot at his wrists and ankles. He begged his captors to loosen the cuffs and the shackles, and they finally did. Then he shuffled out to a waiting van with another boy and two girls, and was driven away. He wondered if this was really happening to him. He reached out and touched the wire mesh barrier in the van. It was real.

About twenty minutes later, the van drove into what appeared to be a garage. But then the door went down behind the vehicle and locked as another door opened in front and the van drove forward and stopped. Because his father was a prison guard and had told him about them, Matthew knew this was a sally port, an entry point to a secure facility that was once a feature of many medieval castles. In modern times, they are used for prisons. Mat­thew had been taken to PA Child Care, a privately owned, for-profit juvenile detention facility in Pittston, Pennsylvania, that had been opened just two years earlier. It was a state-of-the-art “juvie,” but to Matthew it was an ugly jail.

Matthew, his face frozen into a fright mask, was hustled inside, where a woman at a desk took all of his personal items, including his wallet, keys, and a religious medal that said, “I am a Catho­lic. Please Call a Priest.” He was handed gray sweatpants, a gray sweatshirt, and black plastic flip-flops, and directed to a room to change his clothes. He was ordered to take a shower and wash his hair with an anti-lice shampoo. That night he lay on his bed and stared at the ceiling. Tears rolled down his temples and into his ears.

Ciavarella had sent Matthew to PA Child Care to await a psy­chological evaluation. In the interim, Matthew went to classes, which he found very easy. They used stapled photocopies of text­books rather than the books themselves. Fridays they watched movies. Time creaked along, the days passing by like centuries. Finally, on the sixteenth day, Matthew met with the psycholo­gist for about an hour, and the therapist’s eventual conclusion was that Mattthew was depressed. “Who wouldn’t be?” Mat­thew asked plaintively years later. Because he blamed her for his predicament, Matthew steadfastly refused to speak to his mother. County probation officers told Matthew he would not be released until he did.

But a week after Matthew’s incarceration, his father launched an all-out, frantic effort to get his son out of PA Child Care. He tried to contact his local congressman, state legislators, county officials, the office of governor Ed Rendell, the state Judicial Conduct board—anyone who might help. He knocked on doors, wrote letters, made phone calls, and sent emails. He also got in touch with the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader, which eventually ran a story outlining Matthew’s plight. Five days after the article appeared, Matthew got another hearing before Ciavarella. He was brought to the courthouse in shackles, and as he got off the elevator a woman waiting to step on exclaimed in amazement, “Look at that little kid! What could he have done?” Matthew was released and placed on probation. He had been deprived of his freedom for forty-eight days.

During his seven weeks at PA Child Care, Matthew saw the movie Napoleon Dynamite three times. He came to hate it. When he was not in class, he was confined to his room. He was not al­lowed to lay on his bed during the day and instead had to sit on a backless stool at a metal desk. “Being in jail is a terrible thing,” he said. “I was locked up like an animal.”

Matthew returned to the seventh grade and worked hard to get his grades back up to the B level. Many of his former friends avoided him. “Their mothers didn’t want their sons hanging around with a juvenile delinquent,” he recalled bitterly. He grad­uated from high school, but seven years after his confinement he still jousted with depression regularly. He wants to be an airline pilot, but he is unable to take the first step toward higher educa­tion. “I picture myself in college,” he says, closing his eyes with the imagining. “But I just can’t do it.” At the age of twenty, he is estranged from his mother and lives with his father. He works full-time in a restaurant, making pizzas and serving takeout pasta. There is a lost look about him, as though he has been perma­nently startled.

When Angelia was fourteen, she and a friend scrawled “Vote for Michael Jackson” on five stop signs with a black felt marker. There had been a spate of stop-sign graffiti all over her home­town, and police decided to charge the girls with all of the offenses—eighty-six counts of vandalism and defacing public property. When Angelia’s mother protested that she was only responsible for a few stop signs, she said the officer told her that unless her daughter pled guilty to all of the charges, “he’d make sure she’d see Judge Ciavarella on a day Penn State lost the pre­vious weekend because Judge Ciavarella sends all juveniles to jail if Penn State loses.”

Penn State’s football season was over by the time Angelia and her friend got into Ciavarella’s courtroom, but most of the twenty-minute hearing was taken up by discussions among the judge, court officials, and local police about the national football league playoffs. The previous weekend, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles had won divisional playoff games, and there was talk of an all-Pennsylvania Super Bowl.

Ciavarella seemed to resent being distracted from the gridiron speculations, and he ignored conflicting testimony from an al­leged eyewitness who described Angelia as having short black hair. Angelia’s long blonde hair reached down to her waist. Angelia and her co-defendant admitted vandalizing five of the signs, but said they had nothing to do with the other eighty-one. Never­theless, the judge said that even though it had not been proven that the girls had defaced all eighty-six stops signs, he was go­ing to use them as an example to deter others. He ordered them shackled and taken away by juvenile probation officers.

Angelia’s mother protested that her daughter was epileptic and subject to seizures under stress, and she shouted to the probation officers leading her away, “she can’t go without her medication!” but by this time Ciavarella was part of a rising tide of repar­tee over the Super Bowl, and he ignored the frantic mother. At PA Child Care, Angelia was placed in a locked room with a bunk and a stool. It felt like a prison. Her mother contacted officials at PA Child Care and warned them Angelia’s seizures were brought on by stress. “Her stress level is too high, and I know she’s going to have a seizure,” she said.

On her second night at the detention center, Angelia’s mus­cles suddenly contracted and she lost consciousness. Her body violently alternated between relaxation and rigidity. The savage muscle contractions lasted about two minutes. When she regained consciousness, she had a throbbing headache. Angelia had had a grand mal seizure. She had banged her head against the cement wall next to her bed so hard that she cracked her dental braces.

The next day she was before Ciavarella again, shackled, hand­cuffed, and weak from her trauma. As her mother held her up­right, she remembered Ciavarella saying, “There’s people with worse illnesses in jail. Don’t think I won’t throw you back.” He then released Angelia from detention and placed her under house arrest. However, despite the fact that Angelia had been an A stu­dent, Ciavarella refused to allow her to return to her school for three months as part of her punishment. She managed to finish her freshman year with Bs and Cs. but throughout high school Angelia suffered from her brief encounter with Judge Ciavarella.

“She rarely left the house in her teen years,” her mother said.

“I had to force her to go to her own prom just to have some kind of high school experiences. She never went to football games, never went to anything. And I feel it was from what happened that one time, the very first time she got into trouble. You know, she should maybe have gotten a little bit of punishment, but not an ax thrown at her. It’s taken a lot of years for her to come out of that shell. And I blame him for that.”

Angelia said she believed her youthful experience changed her outlook permanently: “I’ve learned that people we put in power just aren’t always the ones we should trust. Judge Ciavarella, I thought maybe he could see I wasn’t a bad kid. Yes, I did de­serve a slap on the wrist. Yes, I did deserve to be punished. Did I deserve what I got? No. Was I punished too harshly? Yes. I just think I was punished too harshly, and I just don’t think it was very fair.”

Nevertheless, eight years after her encounter with Ciavarella, she was about to graduate from college and planned to pursue a doctorate in Sociology so she could teach at the college level.

In November 2003, some members of the literary club at Crest-Wood High School decided to pull a prank designed to get one of them summoned to the principal’s office. It was an asinine idea—the kind of thing adolescents sometimes do. Sixteen-year­ old Lisa penned a note that said: “I like to shoot, shoot, shoooot young men. I will tell you now of my Evil Plans. On Nov. 26, I will bring my father’s 5 PM semiautomatic handgun to school. I will shoot the kneecaps of innocent young men.” Lisa signed the name of another club member. The note was left on a table for easy discovery. It was senseless and insensitive, foolish and foolhardy—especially for someone with a 3.8 grade point av­erage who had never been in trouble before. Lisa was quickly identified as the true author, and by the time she got to the princi­pal’s office, she realized she had “done something really stupid.” She was contrite, wept, and even offered to get on the school public address system to apologize. Her mother and her grand­mother came in, and it was agreed that she should be suspended for three days.

Lisa was ashamed—it was the first time she was ever disci­plined in school—but she thought that would be the end of it. Who would actually take her threat seriously? Her father lived in another state, no one else at her home owned a handgun, and there’s no such thing as a 5 PM semiautomatic. Lisa was an un­likely terrorist. She often carried spiders and insects outside her house and released them, rather than killing them inside. She didn’t believe she had the right to kill anything.

But the next morning she was seated at the dining room table studying her geometry textbook when the doorbell rang. Only her grandfather was home, and he was upstairs, so Lisa went to the door. She was surprised to see two uniformed police of­ficers, who said they were taking her into custody. They stepped into the kitchen, handcuffed her, and as her grandfather stood by helplessly, began to escort her outside. It was cold, and she asked to wear her jacket. Because she was handcuffed, she had to wear it like a blanket. They perp walked her out to the cruiser and ducked her head as they guided her into the backseat. Her eyes brimmed with tears, and then spilled over when she passed her high school. Her friends were inside, sitting in class. She was in the back of a police car in handcuffs.

Lisa was taken to PA Child Care to await a hearing before Cia­varella. But it was the day before Thanksgiving, and the court had closed until the following Monday. She was locked in a room, behind a dead-bolted metal door, for the night. Lisa lay down on her cot and sank into her thoughts. She wasn’t afraid. She wasn’t angry. She was just lonely. She questioned her self-worth. What did everyone think of her? Would her friends be her friends when she returned to school next week? Did everyone hate her? Did they laugh when they heard what happened to her? The next day she had a cafeteria-style turkey dinner with canned carrots and peas. She sat next to a girl named Michelle who the previous night had tried to carve her name into her forearm with a nail file but had succeeded only as far as “MICH.”

After five days in PA Child Care, Lisa, shackled and hand­cuffed, was taken to the courthouse for a hearing before Ciava­rella on charges of making “terroristic threats.” Did she write that note, Ciavarella asked. Lisa said she did. She started to explain that she never intended to harm anyone, but the judge silenced her with an admonitory finger. Her attorney told the judge Lisa’s note was “a bad prank” and asked the she be placed on probation. Ciavarella interrupted him and sentenced Lisa to an indefinite term at a wilderness camp for girls. The entire proceeding took less than five minutes.

At the camp, some of the girls were tough, inner-city teenag­ers convicted of violent crimes. But others were there for stealing their father’s credit card to buy clothes and for unintentionally bringing a pocketknife to school. At one point while among a group of girls cleaning portable toilets, she began singing the or­phanage song from the Broadway musical Annie:

“It’s a hard-knock life, for us! It’s a hard-knock life, for us!”

Before long, most of the other girls had joined in.

“Steada treated, we get tricked. stead kisses, we get kicked!”

Nine days after Lisa arrived in detention, Ciavarella ordered her released following appeals from school authorities and rec­ommendations from camp counselors. She had missed two weeks of school, and she had a criminal record. She was ashamed and embarrassed in school. She withdrew from activities. She felt guilty. Some of her former friends and their parents said she de­served what she got and should have been kept in detention for months. She lost her driver’s license for a year, and when she got it back the insurance company raised her rates because of her record. She didn’t apply for a job if the applications asked for ar­rests and convictions.

But Lisa graduated from high school, went to college, got a teaching job after earning her BA degree, and got married. Then she and her new husband applied to the Peace Corps. Lisa’s ap­plication was flagged and put on hold. Sixteen months and many questions later, the couple was finally approved, and in September 2011 they began their assignment in Mozambique. Lisa is still embarrassed about her ill-advised misstep at the age of sixteen.

Charlie had a passion for motors and vehicles, and when he spot­ted a used motorbike for sale in the summer of 2006, he wanted it. It was a bright red Greenline “beach cruiser.” It was only $60. At fifteen, Charlie was a troubled, anxious boy. “We thought it might cheer him up,” his mother recalled, “so we bought it for him. He was overjoyed.” like his father, Charlie had consider­able mechanical aptitude, and he alternately rode and tinkered with his new possession.

But several weeks later, two police officers knocked on the door of his house. Charlie was home alone and thought he was in trouble for riding the Greenline without a helmet. Instead, the officer told him the bike was stolen. They said they’d be back later. When Charlie’s parents came home that night, the po­lice returned. The adults tried to explain that they thought they had legitimately purchased the bike, but all three of them were arrested. Later, the charges were dropped against the parents, but Charlie was ordered to appear before Ciavarella.

Charlie thought he would just explain what happened to the judge, and his problems would be over. Probation officers ad­vised his parents that he did not need an attorney. But as he and his mother sat on folding chairs outside the courtroom awaiting his hearing, his mother noticed a disturbing pattern: Parents were going into Judge Ciavarella’s courtroom with their children, but only the parents were coming out. A low-watt anxiety surged through her. Each time the door opened, his mother heard a jan­gling sound. She didn’t realize it just then, but it was the sound of shackles. Concern turned to panic when they got before the judge and found out Charlie had been charged with receiving stolen merchandise—a felony.

Charlie, a shy, pudgy, bespectacled youth, stood there with his hands in his pockets and fear on his face for the entire three-minute hearing. Even though he had had no prior run-ins with law enforcement authorities, Ciavarella adjudicated him a ju­venile delinquent. Charlie was neither advised of his right to a lawyer, told of the consequences of pleading guilty, nor given a chance to explain how he had innocently come to own the mo­torbike. If Charlie had been an adult, he would have received a sentence of either probation or a maximum of one month in prison under state sentencing guidelines. But as a juvenile, Char­lie received an indeterminate sentence. As it turned out, he would be locked up for most of the next three years for a crime he did not commit.

Before he even understood what had happened to him, the boy was being shackled and handcuffed. His mother reached out to comfort him, but he was hustled away from her and out of the courtroom to a crowded holding cell with other children. Indeed, there were so many other youths in the room that all of the benches were filled and Charlie was obliged to stand against the wall. Later, a sheriff ’s van sliced through an angular, sleeting rain and took everyone to PA Child Care. A psychological evaluation there concluded that Charlie suffered from anxiety and depres­sion. His parents were charged $250 for the evaluation. When they asked for a second opinion from a physician covered by their medical insurance, they were turned down by county authorities.

After six weeks in PA Child Care, Charlie was sent to a “boot camp” designed to teach wayward adolescents discipline. He was placed in a cabin with boys who had been convicted of drug deal­ing and gun-related offenses. Here his mental state worsened. He couldn’t sleep, and he said he didn’t speak to anyone for three months. The camp doctor placed him on the mood stabilizer Seroquel, and he showed some improvement. Three months later, he was released and returned to high school. But he had fallen be­hind his junior-year classmates, and his grades dropped. He was shunned as a troublemaker and delinquent by many of his former friends. When his infant niece was killed in a tragic apartment fire, his anxiety and depression returned. He began using drugs and missing appointments with his probation officer. Soon he was again before Ciavarella, who sent him to back to PA Child Care. He would be in and out of detention facilities for three years. When he was finally released, he sent a plaintive Twitter message to his friends: “i am about to go home from being in placement for 3 years for something i didn’t do i can’t wait.”

Charlie got out of the juvenile justice system when he turned eighteen, but as an adult, he has had more trouble with the law, in­cluding receiving stolen goods and using fraudulent credit cards.

Matthew’s, Angelia’s, Lisa’s, and Charlie’s cases were not devi­ant, aberrant miscarriages of justice. They were part of a routine and systematic form of child abuse that took place in the juve­nile court of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, between 2003 and 2008. During that time, several thousand young defendants were needlessly handcuffed, shackled, and summarily dispatched to incarceration that typically lasted between one and three months. After the briefest of hearings, parents who had accompanied their children to court and expected to return home with them, left instead stunned and bewildered, alone.

Seldom was Ciavarella’s tough-love justice tempered with mercy. No matter how young the defendants, no matter how clean their records, no matter how cringing their hesitancy, no matter how wobbly-voiced or jelly-kneed they appeared in his courtroom, most left shuffling in their shackles to vans that took them away.

While these proceedings were closed to the public, they were witnessed by assistant district attorneys, public defenders, other lawyers, probation officials, and court officers, including clerks and messengers. Often police officers, teachers, and school administrators were also present. The air was heavy with un­spoken words and unacknowledged guilt, yet for six years, through thousands of hearings, no one spoke out effectively in opposition.

In failing to do so, public servants, educators, and others charged with protecting our children served as enablers for one of the worst judicial scandals in American history. For as he meted out these injustices, Judge Ciavarella and his behind-the-scenes co-conspirator, Judge Michael T. Conahan, were being paid mil­lions of dollars by the owners of PA Child Care. in exchange, the judges provided the owners a steady stream of inmates. Children became commodities in a kids-for-cash scheme.

The scandal became public when federal prosecutors held a news conference on January 26, 2009, detailing the kickback scheme that had allowed two judges to wrongfully imprison thousands of children for the judge’s own financial benefit. Ini­tially, however, there was little negative reaction in northeastern Pennsylvania among community leaders—educators, prosecu­tors, public defenders, probation officers, or even the Luzerne County bar association. Indeed, two administrators at the Wilkes-Barre area Vocational Technical school wrote a letter to the editor of the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader praising Ciavarella. “His dedication to working with our students created a bond of trust and confidence among him, the students and the staff,” the administrators wrote. “Students who had personal experiences with the judge have expressed gratitude for his involvement in their lives. His concern for their well-being after adjudication is what makes him so special. He has made a tremendous difference in the school’s educational process.”

But as the breadth and nature of the kids-for-cash wrongdo­ing spread beyond the immediate area, other voices rose. Robert Schwartz, executive director of the nonprofit Juvenile Law Cen­ter, which was instrumental in bringing the scheme to an end, said, “Children in Luzerne County were treated as commodities, with a for-profit provider as purchaser, and the juvenile court as supplier. The Luzerne County juvenile court was in the busi­ness of inventory control. This was done publicly and without comment from other professionals in the room. This is hard to believe.”

Within weeks, the international press took notice. The Sunday Times of London ran a 750-word article headlined, “Judges Took Bribes to Jail Teenagers,” calling it “one of America’s most sin­ister judicial scandals of recent times.” The Economist magazine headlined its piece “The Lowest of the Low.” In Sydney, The Australian proclaimed, “Judges Paid off to Keep Jails Full,” and the New Zealand Herald announced, “U.S. Judges Jailed Kids for Cash.”

In early March, the New York Times ran a front-page article by Ian Urbina, which began: “Things were different in the Luzerne County juvenile courtroom, and everyone knew it. Proceedings on average took less than two minutes. Detention center workers were told in advance how many juveniles to expect at the end of each day—even before hearings to determine their innocence or guilt. Lawyers told families not to bother hiring them. They would not be allowed to speak anyway.”

How could two judges conspire over five years to deprive thousands of children of their most basic constitutional rights and send them off in shackles to detention centers in which these judges had personal financial interests?

There were many ingredients in the Luzerne County judicial scandal—official evil, greed, opportunity, public indifference, secrecy, and place: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, has a history of corruption, nepotism, and mob-related violence dating back decades, so perhaps it should not be a surprise that the juvenile justice system there was corrupt as well.

Although the Luzerne County kids-for-cash scandal resulted from a unique confluence of factors, it was allowed to thrive in part because of a dangerous, nationwide opacity in America’s ju­venile justice system. Matthew, Angelia, Lisa, and Charlie were among the approximately one hundred thousand American chil­dren who, on any given day, are either confined to correctional facilities or held in detention centers awaiting trial or placement.

Fewer than one-third of these youths are being detained for se­rious, violent crimes. Many of the rest, like Matthew, Angelia, Lisa, and Charlie, are incarcerated for nonviolent infractions, including behaviors common among adolescents in our society.

Some of them, like Angelia and Lisa, rebound and begin pro­ductive lives. Others, like Matthew, suffer prolonged emotional stress, long-term psychological damage, truncated educations and careers, and develop deep disdain for a justice system that failed them. And many of them, like Charlie, become adult crim­inals. The lack of transparency at the court level as well as inside juvenile detention centers—particularly those run as private, for-profit companies—is a recipe for abuse and an environment in which scandals such as Luzerne County can be perpetrated out of public sight. Rather than affording extra protections to the most vulnerable among us, we have set up a system of justice for children in this country that too often criminalizes standard adolescent behavior, treats adolescents more harshly than if they were adults committing similar infractions, and is not open to public scrutiny.

The egregious miscarriage that took place in Judge Ciava­rella’s courtroom offers a chilling and telling caricature of a sys­tem prone to abuse, yet nonetheless entrusted with the care of millions of American children.

Excerpted from the book KIDS FOR CASH by William Ecenbarger. Copyright © 2012 by William Ecenbarger. Reprinted with permission of The New Press.

Guest:


Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • KP

    You asked if I see the pipeline in my own community, and I’m not sure about a pipeline in the sense Of how it’s done in your story but I do know that the local prison was recently built in my town was built based off of iTunes scores from the local lower such economic status area uptown and that I see as a problem that we expect that these people Shorewood or would end up in prison solely based off of where they are being raised and how they’re performing in elementary school

  • Ted H.

    The journalist and Ms. Young made the comments that teachers are a problem in this situation, bringing up sensationalized recent news stories.  This simplifies the situation and is lazy journalism on their parts.  Being an educator, and seeing my spouse go through a situation where two students with  behavior problems bring down an entire classroom and make it impossible for the teacher to teach, I understand that there is more to the story.  Parents have a major part to play in these situations, as well as community organizations that support families.  These organizations are usually underfunded and spread thin.  To scapegoat teachers, the people who are with kids for 15% of their week, is easy and misleading.  It is especially hard to hear after we laud the efforts of teachers in the Newtown tragedy.  Please give the whole story, Here and Now.

    • Robin Y

      I hear you, but as the author said, this is not about violence, this is about minor infractions, like a child stealing a lollipop. Your contribution is a important reminder
      of more serious issues.

      Best
      Robin 

      • Ted H.

        I agree that in this corrupt situation and the few sensationalized reports you speak of, the police were called too quickly.  I don’t think that this is indicative of a major, widespread problem.  The true crime is the inadequate support of schools and families, that leads to the blame of teachers for all the ills of society.  

        • http://www.facebook.com/stephan.williams.5220 Stephan Williams

          This happened from 2003 until 2008. That is A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM! The TRUE CRIME was illegally locking up children who were innocent in private prisons for  PROFIT! Ya got that, TED? Or are you simply too stupid to understand what went on here?!?!?

  • http://www.facebook.com/frank.maschkowski.1 Frank Maschkowski

    The law abiding middleclass victim has
    no chance at constitutional protections or justice.  Local governments do not want to be on FBI’s
    top ten list, especially on the hate crime list so Local governments
    are suppressing evidence of hate crimes and persecuting the law abiding victims
    of hate.  I have proof beyond a shadow of
    any doubt.  The cities do not want to be
    on the FBI’s top ten hate crime list of the nation.

  • MarkVII88

    Check out this link below.  Just yesterday in Burlington, VT a former State Police Sgt. pleaded guilty to falsifying tickets, padding timesheets, and defrauding a town of over $75,000 for a patrol contract.  This convicted criminal stole over $200,000 over 6 years  by abusing his position as patrol commander in the VT State Police.  It makes me sick!
    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130114/NEWS02/301140004/Deeghan-pleads-guilty-in-time-sheet-fraud-case
     

  • Blue_To_Shoe

    _______________________________________–Wow….!!!!!!!!!!I believe I first saw this story during a segment in Michael Moore’s ‘Capitalism’ documentary.My mouth was agape at the audacity of it all, but what most disturbed me about the ordeal these kids were put through – as mentioned on today’s program – was the indifference that the community seemed to have possessed in regards to such shocking behavior.Personally, I think the money was more important to the overall community; not just those directly involved, and as a result, this community sold these kids as slaves to this immoral system. It’s the same mindset exhibited by those infamous Republican Primary debate audiences last year: Questions asked of candidate Ron Paul, for example, that resulted in shocking behavior of numerous audience members nodding and cheering about regarding their fellow Americans as mere economic fodder – either an asset or liability.So many Americans are just selling their souls for Capitalist success nowadays. (Just patent idolatry). –_______________________________________

  • Mary Shesgreen

    The whole phenomenon of private, for profit, prisons and detention centers, creates an incentive for corruption and abuse.  There should be no such thing as for-profit prisons.

    Mary Shesgreen

  • Mem

    thanks for covering this important corruption story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

    I hope they are serving their sentences in a Federal “pound me in the ass” Prison.  

  • Mcwtucker

    “Kids for Cash: Two Judges, Thousands of Children, and a $2.6 Million Kickback Scheme
    Congratulations for airing this story and for the conversation with Mr. Ecenbarger.  Looking at the photos of the two judges involved I am struck by the ordinary faces of evil.
    Carolyn Woollen-Tucker

  • Garrett

    I would like to know if anything happened to the district attorneys working with these judges… Were they held accountable in this debacle?

  • http://www.facebook.com/frank.maschkowski.1 Frank Maschkowski

    The entire Los Angeles unconstitutional injustice system should be investigated.  My extremely law abiding parents were persecuted for 27 years along with several other families based on religion 

  • Elizabeth I.

     Thank you, Ms. Young, for bringing this important story to us.  This kind of injustice and corruption should always be exposed and righted (if possible).

    I am a busy teacher and mother and very rarely make time to write comments like this.  I am particularly moved to do this, though, because I feel that you and Mr. Ecenbarger inadvertently insulted me and all of my colleagues. 

    Your story transitioned (around the 13 minute mark) from discussing a very specific case of the crimes of Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan in Luzerne County, PA to discussing teachers in a very broad and generalized fashion. 

    The most insulting thing said was this:

    “Teachers want to get problem kids out of the school and thereby shirk their responsibility for dealing with some of these kids especially for smaller problems.” (13:03 – 13:17)

    I will not argue that this is never the case, but in my experience it is seldom true. 

    The broadness of Mr. Ecenbarger’s statement about teachers and the vagueness of the school to prison pipeline problem discussed after are unfair when presented next to the very specific crimes of two judges in one Pennsylvania county.  If he has a story about specific teachers in specific districts who have committed specific crimes that’s worth reporting. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Beyond-The-Spectrum/100002263519054 Beyond The-Spectrum

    It’s about time some other news agency got a hold of this example of cronyism and self-interests in the private corrections system.  However, this case is old news:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qMnbZ7BKCU&list=UUGwMHOzss1B5o2mEFqsIGtQ&index=55

  • Melody Brooke

    If children had the same rights as adults none of this would have happened. In the legal system a child is a person non grata with no rights.  

  • Jolene G

    This comment was the one that really set me off. 

    “Teachers want to get problem kids out of the school and thereby shirk their responsibility for dealing with some of these kids especially for smaller problems.” (13:03 – 13:17)
    As a teacher the only thing I can do if a student truly gets ‘hard to handle’ is write a referral to the administrator. It is the school administration who decide if charges are filed. 

    What we need are alternative schools, not jails, for at risk students.

  • Shawnb2012

    I’m currently dealing with a juvenile probation officer who s going overboard with our case, threatening me and my girlfriend with jail time for non compliance with her orders. the child’s mother did comply with parenting class, we have split up due to stress from the courts, yet the J.C.O. STILL herasses me and is trying to send her to jail. her supervisor is worse than she(the probation officer) is@!! What can we do for help???

  • red

    Parents are suing a juvenile judge and her attorney friends in Georgia:
    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/195587120?width=1280
    This juvenile judge appoints legal counsel who also owns an adoption agency.

  • Ray in VT

    HOLY CRAP!! #FreeJustina

  • Mom

    Corrupt Judges, Columbia County Oregon, Circuit Court Judge Grove and Circuit Court Judge Martwick helped father commit custodial interference and destroyed my daughter. Case 04-3150. Phony immediate danger orders granted to father 2013 and 2014 by Judge Grove, after father knowingly committed custodial interference. Custody of children given to father with out due process or clear and convincing evidence. Both children have failed academically and socially as a result.

    Judge Jean Martwick has violated the following rules of the
    Judicial code.

    Rule 2.1 Promoting
    Confidence in the Judiciary

    (A) A Judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that
    the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary and access to
    justice are preserved and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes
    public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system.

    Rule 3.3 Ensuring the
    Right to be Heard

    A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal
    interest in a proceeding, or to that person’s attorney, the right to be heard according to law.

    Rule 3.5 Competence,
    Diligence, and Cooperation

    A Judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties
    competently and diligently

    Rule 3.9 Ex Parte
    Communications

    (A) Unless expressly authorized by law or with the consent
    of the parties, a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte
    communications.

    The following exceptions apply:

    (1) When
    circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling,
    administrative, or emergency purposes, that does not address the merits of a
    matter, is permitted, provided:

    (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a
    procedural, tactical, or other advantage on the merits, as a result of the ex
    parte communication; and

    (b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other
    parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties a
    reasonable opportunity to respond.

    (2) A judge may consult with court staff, court officials,
    and employees of the judicial branch of government whose functions are to aid other
    judges at the same level, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid
    receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not
    abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.

    (3)(B) If a judge
    receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the merits of a
    matter, the judge shall promptly notify the parties of the substance of the
    communication and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to respond

    I have already filed a complaint in this matter but after
    listening to the transcript again and reviewing the Rules for Judicial Fitness,
    I believe Judge Martwick’s conduct was
    unethical and violated several rules of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct.
    Her violation caused my daughter to be removed from my care and custody.

    As background, Father on January 27, 2014 picked up our
    daughter from Washington state (I had sole custody) and took her to Oregon. On
    January 28, 2014, he was granted a “Stipulated Immediate Danger Order” based on
    a text message he showed to the judge. Our
    daughter was with him at the time of Order was issued and not with me so she
    was not in danger. Father did not serve me.
    After he took my daughter, I contacted the authorities in Washington
    regarding his custodial interference and was granted a Temporary Order for
    Protection. I did not disclose the Oregon Order as I had not been served and
    had no knowledge it had been granted.

    I came down to Oregon to give the certified copy of the
    Washington Order to the Sherriff for service upon Father but was told that
    Sherriff had spoken to Judge Martwick and was told by her that the Oregon Order
    “trumped” the Washington Order. Judge
    Martwick had improper contact with the Sherriff’s office which affected the
    merits of the case as I was unable to have my daughter returned to me at that
    time. Shortly afterward, I was served
    with the Stipulated Immediate Danger Order from Oregon with a letter from
    Father’s attorney. I immediately
    requested a hearing to object to the Stipulated Immediate Danger Order. The
    hearing was held on February 12, 2014

    I did not have an attorney and Father did have one. Father
    offered to the Judge that our daughter who is 14 years old could testify in
    this matter. Judge Martwick decided that
    she would speak to our daughter alone in her office. I was not asked if I
    agreed with this tactic, I was simply told that the Judge was going to talk to
    my daughter alone. The Judge said our daughter was old enough to talk to her. I
    did not consent and I was not in the room when the Judge spoke to my daughter.
    I believe this is a violation of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9.

    After speaking to my daughter, the Judge said “I met with
    Shelby(our daughter). I’m not prepared to have her come back to you. She does
    not want to return her to you. She does not feel safe in your care”

    Martwick also stated “From the courts perspective, she is
    14, I’m not forcing a 14 year old to go somewhere she doesn’t want to go. (I’m)
    Hoping the Judge up there (in Washington) will do the same thing and talk to
    Shelby and make decisions about that.” Again violating rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and
    3.9 by expressing her belief that the Washington state judge will also have
    ex-parte communication with my daughter.

    Furthermore, the Judge stated “she will not return to you,
    she’s run away. She is feeling safe and comfortable in her father’s care right
    now.” Judge said that “could be her age
    or where she is at but a 14 year old
    disappeared for four days and who knows what harm’s way again. I’m gonna go with what she decided.” A
    violation of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9 by having unpermitted communication
    with a minor and basing her decision on that conversation instead of the correct
    legal standard for Immediate Danger, that the child was in danger at the time
    the order was granted. Daughter was with Father, not me when the order was
    granted.

    After the ex-parte conversation, the Judge stated in court
    to us that our daughter disputed some facts and when I offered to call my
    witness who was in the hallway, she refused to allow me to call the witness. Judge said, “Unfortunately, when kids get to
    be a certain age, they get to start making decisions about who they live with
    and she is of that age now where she gets to make the decision” Yet again a
    violation of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9 by stating that my daughter is of the
    age now where she can her decision about who they live with is clearly not
    correct. Children are able to make decisions about who they live with at the
    age of 18, not 14.

    Martwick also stated “She’s safe and comfortable with her
    Father, it might be time for her to live there, I’m finding that it is time for
    her to live there.” Here the Judge has turned this hearing into a custody
    matter which it is not is

    Judge said, “I’m trying to tell you your daughter is not
    returning to you” When I asked based on what? Marwick answered, “her choice”.
    When I asked about the next step in the process and when could I present more
    evidence, Martwick said, “You know what? You didn’t need them, I got everything
    I needed. You daughter gave me everything I needed to make this decision”.

    This final decision seems to me to be the outright violation
    of the law, the process, my rights and my daughter’s rights with ongoing and
    blatant violations of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9 by initiating, permitting
    and considering ex-parte communications.
    Not only did she permit but she encouraged the ex-parte communication. She
    encouraged the ex-parte conduct, took the information she obtained in a matter
    that being heard in her courtroom, did not permit open testimony, without
    consent of ALL parties and without allowing me respond to the information she
    revived in the ex parte communication and based her decision on this ex-parte
    communication.

    I have lost my daughter over this and it is a matter of
    public record that a child was removed from my care because of an immediate
    danger that was created while with me. I
    do not want this to happened to anyone else’s child as obviously, Martwick does
    not understand the law or the rules of being a judge.

    There is a recording of this matter and the quotes are from
    that recording.

    Thank you,

    Judge Jean Martwick has violated the following rules of the
    Judicial code.

    Rule 2.1 Promoting
    Confidence in the Judiciary

    (A) A Judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that
    the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary and access to
    justice are preserved and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes
    public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system.

    Rule 3.3 Ensuring the
    Right to be Heard

    A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal
    interest in a proceeding, or to that person’s attorney, the right to be heard according to law.

    Rule 3.5 Competence,
    Diligence, and Cooperation

    A Judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties
    competently and diligently

    Rule 3.9 Ex Parte
    Communications

    (A) Unless expressly authorized by law or with the consent
    of the parties, a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte
    communications.

    The following exceptions apply:

    (1) When
    circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling,
    administrative, or emergency purposes, that does not address the merits of a
    matter, is permitted, provided:

    (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a
    procedural, tactical, or other advantage on the merits, as a result of the ex
    parte communication; and

    (b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other
    parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties a
    reasonable opportunity to respond.

    (2) A judge may consult with court staff, court officials,
    and employees of the judicial branch of government whose functions are to aid other
    judges at the same level, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid
    receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not
    abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.

    (3)(B) If a judge
    receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the merits of a
    matter, the judge shall promptly notify the parties of the substance of the
    communication and provide them with a reasonable opportunity to respond

    I have already filed a complaint in this matter but after
    listening to the transcript again and reviewing the Rules for Judicial Fitness,
    I believe Judge Martwick’s conduct was
    unethical and violated several rules of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct.
    Her violation caused my daughter to be removed from my care and custody.

    As background, Father on January 27, 2014 picked up our
    daughter from Washington state (I had sole custody) and took her to Oregon. On
    January 28, 2014, he was granted a “Stipulated Immediate Danger Order” based on
    a text message he showed to the judge. Our
    daughter was with him at the time of Order was issued and not with me so she
    was not in danger. Father did not serve me.
    After he took my daughter, I contacted the authorities in Washington
    regarding his custodial interference and was granted a Temporary Order for
    Protection. I did not disclose the Oregon Order as I had not been served and
    had no knowledge it had been granted.

    I came down to Oregon to give the certified copy of the
    Washington Order to the Sherriff for service upon Father but was told that
    Sherriff had spoken to Judge Martwick and was told by her that the Oregon Order
    “trumped” the Washington Order. Judge
    Martwick had improper contact with the Sherriff’s office which affected the
    merits of the case as I was unable to have my daughter returned to me at that
    time. Shortly afterward, I was served
    with the Stipulated Immediate Danger Order from Oregon with a letter from
    Father’s attorney. I immediately
    requested a hearing to object to the Stipulated Immediate Danger Order. The
    hearing was held on February 12, 2014

    I did not have an attorney and Father did have one. Father
    offered to the Judge that our daughter who is 14 years old could testify in
    this matter. Judge Martwick decided that
    she would speak to our daughter alone in her office. I was not asked if I
    agreed with this tactic, I was simply told that the Judge was going to talk to
    my daughter alone. The Judge said our daughter was old enough to talk to her. I
    did not consent and I was not in the room when the Judge spoke to my daughter.
    I believe this is a violation of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9.

    After speaking to my daughter, the Judge said “I met with
    Shelby(our daughter). I’m not prepared to have her come back to you. She does
    not want to return her to you. She does not feel safe in your care”

    Martwick also stated “From the courts perspective, she is
    14, I’m not forcing a 14 year old to go somewhere she doesn’t want to go. (I’m)
    Hoping the Judge up there (in Washington) will do the same thing and talk to
    Shelby and make decisions about that.” Again violating rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and
    3.9 by expressing her belief that the Washington state judge will also have
    ex-parte communication with my daughter.

    Furthermore, the Judge stated “she will not return to you,
    she’s run away. She is feeling safe and comfortable in her father’s care right
    now.” Judge said that “could be her age
    or where she is at but a 14 year old
    disappeared for four days and who knows what harm’s way again. I’m gonna go with what she decided.” A
    violation of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9 by having unpermitted communication
    with a minor and basing her decision on that conversation instead of the correct
    legal standard for Immediate Danger, that the child was in danger at the time
    the order was granted. Daughter was with Father, not me when the order was
    granted.

    After the ex-parte conversation, the Judge stated in court
    to us that our daughter disputed some facts and when I offered to call my
    witness who was in the hallway, she refused to allow me to call the witness. Judge said, “Unfortunately, when kids get to
    be a certain age, they get to start making decisions about who they live with
    and she is of that age now where she gets to make the decision” Yet again a
    violation of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9 by stating that my daughter is of the
    age now where she can her decision about who they live with is clearly not
    correct. Children are able to make decisions about who they live with at the
    age of 18, not 14.

    Martwick also stated “She’s safe and comfortable with her
    Father, it might be time for her to live there, I’m finding that it is time for
    her to live there.” Here the Judge has turned this hearing into a custody
    matter which it is not is

    Judge said, “I’m trying to tell you your daughter is not
    returning to you” When I asked based on what? Marwick answered, “her choice”.
    When I asked about the next step in the process and when could I present more
    evidence, Martwick said, “You know what? You didn’t need them, I got everything
    I needed. You daughter gave me everything I needed to make this decision”.

    This final decision seems to me to be the outright violation
    of the law, the process, my rights and my daughter’s rights with ongoing and
    blatant violations of rules 2.1 , 3.3, 3.5 and 3.9 by initiating, permitting
    and considering ex-parte communications.
    Not only did she permit but she encouraged the ex-parte communication. She
    encouraged the ex-parte conduct, took the information she obtained in a matter
    that being heard in her courtroom, did not permit open testimony, without
    consent of ALL parties and without allowing me respond to the information she
    revived in the ex parte communication and based her decision on this ex-parte
    communication.

    I have lost my daughter over this and it is a matter of
    public record that a child was removed from my care because of an immediate
    danger that was created while with me. I
    do not want this to happened to anyone else’s child as obviously, Martwick does
    not understand the law or the rules of being a judge.

    There is a recording of this matter and the quotes are from
    that recording.

    Thank you,

  • Mom

    Mom

    4 minutes ago

    Corrupt Judges, Columbia County Oregon, Circuit Court Judge Grove helped father destroy my children. Case 04-3150. Phony immediate
    danger orders granted to father 2013 and 2014 by Judge Grove, after
    father knowingly committed custodial interference. Custody of children
    given to father with out due process or clear and convincing evidence.

    Oregon Judicial Complaint Judge Grove, Columbia County

    Once a general judgment of divorce or a custody judgment as been entered, you have to proceed under ORS 107.139, the post judgment emergency custody statute. Following entry of a judgment, a court may enter ex parte a temporary order providing for the custody of or parenting with a child if:

    A parent of the child is present in court and presents an affidavit alleging that the child is in immediate danger ( No affidavit to the court for the immediate danger order signed by Judge Grove in Columbia County Oregon on January 28, 2014. Motion and Affidavit are crossed out and “stipulated” is hand written above the crossed out words, petitioner and respondent boxes are both marked. Mother had no knowledge of this order and never agreed there is/was any danger for the children while in Mothers care. No child name is on the order and no reason is given for the order, no facts are included with the order.)

    The parent has made a good faith effort to confer with the other party regarding the purpose and time of this court appearance; and ( no effort was made to contact Mother by Father, No phone calls from Father to Mother during this time are on record. Mother called Father several times on January 27th, 2014 and Father did not answer the phone on the night that Father illegally removed child from WA state against a valid Oregon court order, case #04-3150, Oregon . When child was missing on 1-27-2014, Mother was terrified and called 911 to report child missing. The Kent WA Police contacted father by phone and father told the police he had child in Oregon. Father deliberately did not contact mothert and did not answer mothers phone calls. This is not a good faith effort to contact the other party. mother pointed out to Judge Martwick on 2-12-2014 that mother did not know of the order and that she was not contacted which contradicts the “stipulated by parties” and this relevant information was ignored by Judge Martwick.

    The court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the facts presented in the parents testimony and affidavit and in the testimony of the other
    party, if the other party is present, that the child is in immediate danger. What is the clear and convincing evidence in this case? ( no facts supplied to court to obtain the immediate danger order, father. claims he showed Judge Grove a text message from mother, then father claims he accidentally erased the text message….mother never sent any text message that agreed that children is/are in any danger from being with mother. I do Not believe that a missing text message is enough to remove children from their Mom- no basis for immediate danger. mother has all text messages sent prior to and after the immediate danger order. Father lied to the courts and they did not question it or ask for any facts to support his lies, nor did they contact mother. An immediate danger order was granted without any facts to support it. What is the danger? Who is in danger? Why was I NOT notified of the immediate danger order? This is unethical and a misuse of immediate danger orders by father his attorney (Mr. Horn) and the Columbia County Courts in Oregon.

    The party requesting an order under this subsection provides the court with telephone numbers where the party can be reached at any time during the day and a contact address.

    Notice to the other parent is required for post judgment emergency custody orders, (The other parent Toni Swaim was not given any notice of this immediate danger order by Terry Swaim or the court)

    Post judgment, you have to at the same time file to modify the existing judgment. The burden of proof is higher post judgment than pre-judgment. (There is no proof of immediate danger. No modification for parenting time or custody was filed with this motion. There is no proof, no facts support this order, Toni Swaim has facts that contradict this order. Mother was told in court by Judge Martwick on February 12, 2014 that the immediate danger order would remain in effect until mother signed full custody of all children over to Father. This statement by Judge Martwick was made prior to a motion for modification of custody and parenting time was filed in the case. Mother was not represented by an attorney and the evidence mother has in this case was not heard by the court on February 12, 2014. On February 14,2014 a Motion and order to show cause for modification of general judgment of dissolution/appointment for attorney for children was filed by fathers attorney James Horn. This is not how the ORS 107.139 describes this situation and I feel it is unethical behavior by Judge Grove and Judge Martwick.)

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

September 12 8 Comments

Senator: Arab Countries ‘Need To Step To The Plate’ In Fight Against ISIS

Mark Begich (D-AK) is one of the few members of Congress speaking out against a key part of President Obama's plan for fighting the Islamic State.

September 12 Comment

Ecuadorian Drilling Damage Inspires Documentary

An American and an Ecuadorian are inspired to help Ecuador heal from decades of drilling and oil spills.

September 11 9 Comments

Doctor: 9/11 Responders’ Illnesses Becoming Worse

A World Trade Center Health Program medical provider says chronic illnesses affecting first responders are lingering and becoming worse.

September 11 Comment

Dennis Lehane Takes ‘The Drop’ From Screen To Page

Author Dennis Lehane discusses adapting a screenplay into a novel.