3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoThat'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.