4 ms·

Respectfully disagree. Paperwork "signed" by a five year ought to be meaningless in any legal situation and the judge should have laughed this out of court. If

Respectfully disagree. Paperwork "signed" by a five year ought to be meaningless in any legal situation and the judge should have laughed this out of court. If an adult says "write your name here" they're almost certainly going to do it. They're little kids! The one in question was offered crayons to color with afterward! Here's an article with more context: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-five-year-old-who-was-detained-at-the-border-and-convinced-to-sign-away-her-rights https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-five-year-old-w... In brief, the hearing is to determine if the person can be released on a bond (or parole) instead of being detained. In other words, this probably would have gotten the kid out much faster!

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Gotten the kid out of where? The article indicates the government very quickly got her out of the detention center, putting her in a shelter since they hadn't found her mother at the time.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  From the 8th paragraph: > Helen had a right to a bond hearing before a judge; that > hearing would have likely hastened her release from > government custody and her return to her family. You are, I presume, way older and wiser than a five year old. If you can't figure out the form, why would you expect a child to understand it? I would bet most kids could be persuaded to check either box by saying "Check here if you want to see your grandma" or "Check here if want to stay and color instead of having to sit quietly in court."
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    But how would the hearing have done that? The document strongly suggests that it wasn't a hearing about whether she should be released. Again, I don't think anyone does expect a child to understand the form. But they need to either have the hearing or not have the hearing, regardless of what the child understands or whether a guardian has yet been found.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      That's literally the point! I suppose that if you're okay with the system as-is, then sure, they need to have the hearing or cancel it. Personally, I think the whole thing is horrific and Kafkaesque: the form is just a salient example of it. For example, they could have left the grandmother and child together, reunited them when the grandmother was released, or at least let the grandmother make legal decisions on the kid's behalf. For unaccompanied minors, there ought to be people representing them on staff, like the Dept of Child Services/Children and Families/etc have in other situations. In a world where we spend tens of millions of dollar so the president can go golfing, this seems....incredibly doable.
masonic 7y ago
Paperwork "signed" by a five year ought to be meaningless in any legal situation ... so that should apply to her original paperwork requesting a Flores hearing as well.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Sure, though as a custody hearing should happen by default anyway, I don’t see that a particularly deadly objection. We don’t let children who are /twice as old/ drink, smoke, vote, drive, or see scary movies. Do you really think these kids can decide if a Flores hearing is in their best interest?

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Gotten the kid out of where? The article indicates the government very quickly got her out of the detention center, putting her in a shelter since they hadn't found her mother at the time.

mattkrause 7y ago
From the 8th paragraph: > Helen had a right to a bond hearing before a judge; that > hearing would have likely hastened her release from > government custody and her return to her family. You are, I presume, way older and wiser than a five year old. If you can't figure out the form, why would you expect a child to understand it? I would bet most kids could be persuaded to check either box by saying "Check here if you want to see your grandma" or "Check here if want to stay and color instead of having to sit quietly in court."
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  But how would the hearing have done that? The document strongly suggests that it wasn't a hearing about whether she should be released. Again, I don't think anyone does expect a child to understand the form. But they need to either have the hearing or not have the hearing, regardless of what the child understands or whether a guardian has yet been found.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    That's literally the point! I suppose that if you're okay with the system as-is, then sure, they need to have the hearing or cancel it. Personally, I think the whole thing is horrific and Kafkaesque: the form is just a salient example of it. For example, they could have left the grandmother and child together, reunited them when the grandmother was released, or at least let the grandmother make legal decisions on the kid's behalf. For unaccompanied minors, there ought to be people representing them on staff, like the Dept of Child Services/Children and Families/etc have in other situations. In a world where we spend tens of millions of dollar so the president can go golfing, this seems....incredibly doable.

masonic 7y ago

Paperwork "signed" by a five year ought to be meaningless in any legal situation ... so that should apply to her original paperwork requesting a Flores hearing as well.

mattkrause 7y ago
Sure, though as a custody hearing should happen by default anyway, I don’t see that a particularly deadly objection. We don’t let children who are /twice as old/ drink, smoke, vote, drive, or see scary movies. Do you really think these kids can decide if a Flores hearing is in their best interest?